The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 18, 2014, 05:13 PM   #326
steve4102
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,302
MG, logic has no place in the Law or in the legislative process.
steve4102 is offline  
Old July 3, 2014, 10:10 AM   #327
Dan F
Member
 
Join Date: July 13, 2011
Location: MD *gah*
Posts: 54
If anyone knows... what is the status of Peruta now? Has the period for en banc challenge passed, does Harris (AG) have standing, is it being appealed to SCOTUS?

It just seemed to go away...

Dan
Dan F is offline  
Old July 3, 2014, 12:21 PM   #328
HarrySchell
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 561
No discernible action so far.

Bets range from the panel taking a very careful approach to the 9th taking the same approach as the DC Circuit and burying the case, since the "progressives" couldn't win in court.

The longer we go the more I think someone up there is trying to delay things as long as possible. The issues before the panel, allowing Harris to intervene and whether/not then to grant her plea for en banc, just aren't that complex (to this non-lawyer and some others smarter than me).

Unless a way is found to bury it, however, I think the chances are even or better it will stand, or go to SCOTUS. The majority opinion is way too well researched and reasoned to trifle with.
__________________
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will.
— Mark Twain
HarrySchell is offline  
Old July 4, 2014, 06:12 PM   #329
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 2,089
Here you go , you check this from time to time . This is everything that has happened in the case to date

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/..._id=0000000722
__________________
As of this date 8-18-14 at 6:42am I became a proud grandfather I guess I'm officially old

Last edited by Metal god; July 4, 2014 at 10:25 PM.
Metal god is offline  
Old September 15, 2014, 03:44 PM   #330
motorhead0922
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 30, 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 524
What's going on now? Nothing filed for 4 months, and we are now 7 months past the ruling? No en banc is scheduled that I know of...

Something must be happening right? Either that or Peruta has his CHL...
__________________
NRA, SAF, ACLDN, IDPA

"Give me liberty or give me death." - Patrick Henry
motorhead0922 is offline  
Old September 15, 2014, 09:06 PM   #331
Librarian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Concord, CA
Posts: 149
Quote:
Something must be happening right? Either that or Peruta has his CHL...
Nope. No movement of any kind available to public knowledge.
__________________
See the CALGUNS FOUNDATION Wiki for discussion of California firearms law.

The FAQ page is here.
Librarian is online now  
Old September 25, 2014, 12:55 AM   #332
62coltnavy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 228
I have a sneaking suspicion that perhaps the panel is holding its decision(s) until after the November elections, given the political impact of its rulings.
62coltnavy is offline  
Old October 16, 2014, 05:59 PM   #333
HarrySchell
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 561
Peruta Cited Again. Morris v. Corps of Engineers

From Morris v. Army Corps Engineers (D. Idaho Oct. 10, 2014):

"Plaintiffs challenge regulations promulgated by the Army Corp of Engineers that govern the possession of firearms on property administered by the Corps. Plaintiffs argue that the regulations violate their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms...

The Second Amendment protects the right to carry a firearm for self-defense purposes. That right extends outside the home. Peruta, 742 F.3d at 1166 (holding that “the right to bear arms includes the right to carry an operable firearm outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense”).

The Corps’ regulation bans carrying a loaded firearm for the purpose of selfdefense. It also bans carrying an unloaded firearm along with its ammunition. At most, it would allow a person to carry an unloaded firearm so long as he was not also carrying its ammunition. An unloaded firearm is useless for self-defense purposes without its ammunition..."

Next stop is the 9th Circuit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/v...eers-property/
__________________
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will.
— Mark Twain
HarrySchell is offline  
Old October 16, 2014, 10:47 PM   #334
TDL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 25, 2013
Posts: 179
working link

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/v...eers-property/
TDL is offline  
Old October 17, 2014, 01:00 PM   #335
HarrySchell
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 561
Sorry.
__________________
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will.
— Mark Twain
HarrySchell is offline  
Old November 12, 2014, 12:29 PM   #336
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 2,089
AG - DENIED

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...14%20Order.pdf


From what I read it appears this is going to come down to did the court rule on Gore's interpretation of the law only or did they rule on the the law it self . I'd also like to know what you guys think of the timeliness factor and how the court ruled the AG and others did not ask to intervene soon enough .
__________________
As of this date 8-18-14 at 6:42am I became a proud grandfather I guess I'm officially old

Last edited by Metal god; November 12, 2014 at 12:57 PM.
Metal god is offline  
Old November 12, 2014, 01:17 PM   #337
motorhead0922
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 30, 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 524
Quote:
DENIED
So "may-issue" is now "shall issue" in all states served by the 9th circuit?

If there won't be en banc, then the original ruling stands, right?
__________________
NRA, SAF, ACLDN, IDPA

"Give me liberty or give me death." - Patrick Henry
motorhead0922 is offline  
Old November 12, 2014, 02:21 PM   #338
Librarian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Concord, CA
Posts: 149
Quote:
So "may-issue" is now "shall issue" in all states served by the 9th circuit?
Not quite; if there is a 'good cause' requirement, 'self defense' must be accepted.

Quote:
If there won't be en banc, then the original ruling stands, right?
Until those inventive folks come up with something else, yes.
__________________
See the CALGUNS FOUNDATION Wiki for discussion of California firearms law.

The FAQ page is here.
Librarian is online now  
Old November 12, 2014, 02:55 PM   #339
Jim March
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,329
We don't yet know for sure if the Peruta case itself can be now taken up en banc by one of the judges; we suspect so.

In the related Richards case in Yolo County the sheriff is saying he's going to ask for en banc. Hawaii probably will too in Baker. This ain't over...what has just happened today seems to mark the end of a long delay and things might now move faster.
__________________
Jim March
Jim March is online now  
Old November 12, 2014, 05:11 PM   #340
motorhead0922
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 30, 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 524
Fox story:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...carry-permits/

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
San Diego County Sheriff Bill Gore has said he will not fight the ruling, meaning there is no one with standing left to challenge the decision made in February.
Sounds like the fat lady is singing.
__________________
NRA, SAF, ACLDN, IDPA

"Give me liberty or give me death." - Patrick Henry
motorhead0922 is offline  
Old November 12, 2014, 06:41 PM   #341
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 2,089
No fat ladies , this is far from over . There is something like 36+ judges on the 9th . Any one of them can ask to rehear . IMHO the ruling destroys the dissent but I can see more then a few judges on the 9th agreeing with the dissent . No way this is over .
__________________
As of this date 8-18-14 at 6:42am I became a proud grandfather I guess I'm officially old
Metal god is offline  
Old November 13, 2014, 10:56 AM   #342
Armed_Chicagoan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 311
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metal god
No fat ladies , this is far from over . There is something like 36+ judges on the 9th . Any one of them can ask to rehear . IMHO the ruling destroys the dissent but I can see more then a few judges on the 9th agreeing with the dissent . No way this is over .
Does anybody know how long the window is open for an en banc review?
Armed_Chicagoan is offline  
Old November 13, 2014, 12:06 PM   #343
HarrySchell
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 561
The Betting at Calguns

Ran through the threads this morning and it appears the weight of those opinions is:
+ Harris has been denied standing for her active disinterest in the case until Gore gave up. The case law cited in the denial and the facts make it very unlikely she could gain standing at the 9th or with SCOTUS.
+ En banc at the 9th, even on sua sponte, has a big glitch...there is no one to argue for the defense without Harris or Gore.
+Peruta is likely to stand. It doesn't hurt that it is part of decisions in other circuits, notably the DC circuit. That case may get interesting on 11.22.14 if the judge finds the "may issue" law passed by the Council inadequate and tosses it. That is going to weigh against CA agencies that want to ignore Peruta
+Richards and/or Baker can be granted en banc, but must show Peruta was flawed as the substance of the current decisions is "you lose, see Peruta".
+If Peruta stands, San Diego must comply. Other agencies currently playing the same game are going to be on thin ice by denying "self-defense". They may decide the cost of a lawsuit is not worth it, and just slow-roll applications, but there is a statutory limit to that, which invites a civil suit.

The proggies in CA are running out of other people's money. Political buffoonery on CCW may be enough of a loser that they stop fighting "self-defense" and look for other means to issue as few permits as possible.
__________________
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will.
— Mark Twain
HarrySchell is offline  
Old November 13, 2014, 12:47 PM   #344
HarrySchell
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 561
Usually, the timing for a sua sponte en banc is 21 days, which would have started yesterday.

The court has latitude to play with that number to extend it, or will take it if they want.

Given the glitch in the pursuing en banc on Peruta, which would require overruling the panel on the denial of intervention to Harris et al, it seems unlikely. Legal Buffoonery of that level seems too hard, even for the 9th.

More likely is granting en banc on Richards and/or Baker and attack Peruta through them. Both agencies have said they would ask for en banc but have not filed, pending Peruta and the motions. They are running out of time to file, but I dunno how much time they have, or that the stay on San Diego would remain in place.

Gore is said to have started processing "self defense" applications in SD.
__________________
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will.
— Mark Twain
HarrySchell is offline  
Old November 15, 2014, 09:28 AM   #345
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 384
I read this at CalGunLaws.com. I think it is a pretty good summary of the CA RTKBA in light of Peruta:


http://www.calgunlaws.com/ca-nra-ila...o-shall-issue/

I had no idea that Kamala Harris could ask for an en banc review of the order denying her motion to intervene.

I don't understand though why the article didn't mention the possibility of a sua sponte en banc call.
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old November 15, 2014, 04:35 PM   #346
HarrySchell
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 561
I don't think they can do sua sponte without someone to defend Gore's position, and there is no one with standing to do that. Gore passed and (I understand) can't change his mind or be compelled, Harris et al are denied.

That said, I have no remote idea why Michel said sua sponte is still on the table.

Richards or Baker can go en banc, but neither agency has filed yet and a review takes a while. The panel can issue its mandate to Gore within 7-14 days (heard both) and if the other cases don't go en banc and renew the stay, the cat will really be amongst the pigeons.

Not only will the 9th be issuing another stay, jerking everyone around, but it also will muck up rulings in other CA's that cite Peruta.

Strange things happen, but I think we are cruising with the tide in our favor.
__________________
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will.
— Mark Twain
HarrySchell is offline  
Old November 15, 2014, 05:20 PM   #347
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 384
I thought the whole idea of a "sua sponte" en banc call was that the court was doing it itself - not a party. So why would there need to be a party for a sua sponte en banc call?
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old November 15, 2014, 07:55 PM   #348
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 2,089
That's my understanding as well . The court/judge can ask to hear and or review the case . They have the option to ask all party"s to respond or they can just review the case with out asking for anything else from either party .

The thing that gets me is the AG was denied the ability to intervene and yet she can still intervene by asking for even more appeals . Seems odd to me why ask to intervene . If granted she was going to ask for en banc anyway , It seems like a waisted step . I assume it's just something she had to do first .
__________________
As of this date 8-18-14 at 6:42am I became a proud grandfather I guess I'm officially old
Metal god is offline  
Old November 15, 2014, 08:52 PM   #349
Librarian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Concord, CA
Posts: 149
Quote:
I thought the whole idea of a "sua sponte" en banc call was that the court was doing it itself - not a party. So why would there need to be a party for a sua sponte en banc call?
Someone would have to provide briefs for each side; someone would have to appear for oral arguments.

The appellants would be happy, more or less, to do that.

But if Sheriff Gore refuses to participate (he has directed his legal team not to, http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...-%20Letter.pdf) and the court has already ruled the applicants to intervene are not eligible, there seems to be no one willing and able to take on the appellee's role.
__________________
See the CALGUNS FOUNDATION Wiki for discussion of California firearms law.

The FAQ page is here.
Librarian is online now  
Old November 18, 2014, 05:20 PM   #350
press1280
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 223
But the Richards case does have defendants who called for en banc. The 9th could basically hear Richards en banc and dissolve Peruta.
press1280 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.16278 seconds with 8 queries