December 6, 2012, 08:13 PM | #51 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Concord, CA
Posts: 193
|
... there are three different and separate audio streams available from the 9th Circuit's oral arguments this morning:
Edward Peruta, et al. v. County of San Diego, et al. found here: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...6/10-56971.wma (Paul Clement for Appellant) Christopher Baker v. Louis Kealoha, et al. found here: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...6/12-16258.wma Adam Richards, et al. v. Ed Prieto, et al. found here: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...6/11-16255.wma (Alan Gura for Appellant)
__________________
|
December 6, 2012, 09:49 PM | #52 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Since Librarian beat me to the punch, there is no longer any need to upload the files. Be warned, this is not a permanent location, therefore you should download these soonest, as the court will move these files in a few days.
Please direct your comments to the proper thread. Comments on the Peruta case should be made in this thread. Comments on the Richards case should be made here: http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=451451 Comments on the Baker case should be made here: http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=460887 |
November 13, 2013, 01:33 AM | #53 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 356
|
There is a potential that this case, and the two others argued with it in December 2012 (Richards v. Prieto and the Hawaii case) may be decided by the end of the year. There have been developments in other cases that led to this inference. First, there is a case called Nichols v. Governor Brown in which Charles Nichols is challenging California's open carry ban. He filed a motion for preliminary injunction (which was unsurprisingly denied by the trial court) and he appealed to the Ninth circuit. The NRA moved to stay his appeal pending the determination of these other cases, and today that motion was granted over opposition by Nichols and the State--and even though an appeal of a denial of a preliminary injunction is normally accorded some priority. Further, the NRA has a case pending against Sheriff Hutchins (Orange County) and that case was stayed today as well pending these appeals. Finally, the Ninth consolidated a fourth case--a criminal case involving the 2A, setting these up for a grand opinion on the standard of review, an opinion that (as Nordyke v. King was initially designed to do) will control the consideration of the various other case. There is some suggestion that Justice Kosinski, who was bitterly disappointed when Nordyke settled on the eve of its determination, is pushing the agenda.
|
February 13, 2014, 02:29 PM | #54 | |
Member
Join Date: March 4, 2009
Location: Albion, PA
Posts: 93
|
Just saw the news:
Quote:
|
|
February 13, 2014, 02:34 PM | #55 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
That's a big win. NY has the same "good cause" provision, which is arbitrarily and capriciously applied.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
February 13, 2014, 02:52 PM | #56 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Here is the 9th Circuit decision:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...12/1056971.pdf |
February 13, 2014, 02:54 PM | #57 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
I wonder if Moore influenced the decision.
I think it is good news, so anti-gunners have to pursue things like may-issue, capacity restrictions and micro-stamping as ways to try to snuff out people's ability to exercise the Second Amendment. |
February 13, 2014, 02:58 PM | #58 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
Doesn't this mean we have a circuit split between CA9 - Peruta and CA4 -Woollard ?
|
February 13, 2014, 03:15 PM | #59 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Quote:
This ruling is chock-full of useful nuggets that support our view of the right. Kudos to this panel for doing it's job. This is a great day. |
|
February 13, 2014, 03:25 PM | #60 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,417
|
Oh - hell - yeah.
Holy crap...Cali just went shall-issue. SO DOES HAWAII by the way! 9th Circuit. So are Guam and Saipan, and wow is THAT gonna get weird . OK. So...what's next? I understand that this is a flat order to the lower court rather than "set it for a new trial" so this case is done UNLESS the state appeals it to the full 9th (en banc) or the US Supremes. Now...if the state appeals to the Supremes, I'd bet they'd take it. There's now a circuit split the size of the grand canyon between this and rulings from NY/NJ/MD. This is actually bigger than Moore (7th Circuit that forced IL to issue) because Moore didn't actually specify whether IL could go shall-issue or may-issue. We got shall-issue in IL politically, not via court action. That's why there were pro-may-issue decisions on the east coast after Moore came out. What else...California also bans open carry. Is it legal to open-carry in San Francisco(!) right now? I don't know. If, tomorrow, somebody were to walk into the SFPD and try to apply and get denied the blank form, would they then be OK open carrying? Ummmm...dunno. I'm not advising it *yet* but it could come to that if the stonewalling gets crazy enough. Will this panel in Paruta stay the decision to allow for appeals to en banc or Supremes? Ah...probably...but who knows? Holy...crap. Oh wow, one more question: there's another case just like Peruta still pending - Gura's case out of Yolo County, right? The one that used to include Sacramento until they folded? Well is that moot? One three-judge panel can't override another, right? That was my understanding...
__________________
Jim March |
February 13, 2014, 03:26 PM | #61 | ||||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
It's actually astonishing that this comes from the 9th.
I haven't had time to read the whole thing yet but it really blows my mind. Whole sections could be written by an Originalist. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
||||
February 13, 2014, 03:29 PM | #62 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,142
|
Quote:
|
|
February 13, 2014, 03:37 PM | #63 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,417
|
Quote:
To a degree, the 9th is standing alone against the cases from New Jersey, New York and Maryland (Woolard).
__________________
Jim March |
|
February 13, 2014, 03:57 PM | #64 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,142
|
Quote:
|
|
February 13, 2014, 04:26 PM | #65 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2013
Posts: 988
|
Wow, there are a lot of useful bits in this ruling that support the 2A. I'm very eager to learn whether or not the state will be taking this to the next level.
__________________
Semper Fi Marine, NRA member, SAF Defender's Club member, and constitutionally protected keeper and bearer of firearms |
February 13, 2014, 05:04 PM | #66 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
I just had a four letter word moment reading the first footnote.
Quote:
|
|
February 13, 2014, 05:28 PM | #67 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Concord, CA
Posts: 193
|
Richards v Prieto is a similar case, also at 9th Circuit. Docket from RECAP: http://ia600408.us.archive.org/4/ite...26.docket.html
Oral arguments were Dec 6, 2012.
__________________
|
February 13, 2014, 05:42 PM | #68 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
I wonder if Moore influenced the decision.
To answer my own question, from the opinion:
Quote:
|
|
February 13, 2014, 05:47 PM | #69 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Had a mildly ironic thought: If open carry activists contributed to the the open carry ban then they had a hand in this decision as well, because the court found that the fact that open carry is banned means that the State's preferred method of satisfying the right, licensed concealed carry, cannot be denied for self defense (absent prohibiting factors).
I am also observing that it is the overreach of anti-gun zealots (banning unloaded open carry, for example) that is once again their downfall. True believers are so convinced of their correctness that, in their mind, no restriction on 2A rights could possibly go too far. Until it does! |
February 13, 2014, 05:48 PM | #70 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 28, 2011
Location: Alaska
Posts: 206
|
I'm pretty much speechless. Amazing.
The court analyzes the historical cases used by the "wrong" circuits when they relied on pre-Heller interpretations of the 2nd Amendment, and then it ends with this little gem: "And with these cases off the table, the remaining cases speak with one voice: states may not destroy the right to bear arms in public under the guise of regulating it." Wow. So right.
__________________
The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. -James Burgh |
February 13, 2014, 05:49 PM | #71 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,903
|
I wonder if San Diego's new mayor will have a role in determining whether the city requests an en banc hearing.
|
February 13, 2014, 06:00 PM | #72 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
It is amazing to me that Judge O'Scannlain reads Heller "the need for the right is “most acute” in the home" and concludes
Quote:
|
|
February 13, 2014, 06:54 PM | #73 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
I think I'm in love.
Quote:
And I really have to wonder if Alan Gura didn't ghost write this opinion with the earlier quote and.... Quote:
And another barb about where one would acquire arms one wasn't allowed to carry until after a confrontation already happened that I can't find again right now. Ad here's another one... Quote:
More love Quote:
Last edited by JimDandy; February 13, 2014 at 07:03 PM. |
||||
February 13, 2014, 07:04 PM | #74 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
I'm only at pg 42 of the decision, but I had to peak at the news to see if I was correct on where the decision was going.
I suspect that tomorrow, Richards and Baker will be reversed and remanded for a decision that is consistent with this opinion. I also suspect that San Diego will petition for en banc. As KyJim says, that will put everything back on hold. Yet I rather doubt that an en banc decision will be any different. So far, this opinion is most excellently reasoned and written! This was not the expected result. Those of us that were watching intently, suspected that this would go against us. For all the reasons that this is the CA9. I am now more hopeful that the SCOTUS will take Drake v Filko, to settle this (now very) wide split within the circuits. |
February 13, 2014, 07:10 PM | #75 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,903
|
Wow - an entire 13-page section of the decision is devoted to why the decisions in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Circuits were wrong, with O'Scannlain essentially calling their authors out for being lazy or timid.
Quote:
Last edited by gc70; February 13, 2014 at 07:18 PM. |
|
|
|