What is the Status of Peruta

[steve4102]

Saw this the other day and was wondering if anyone has more info and incite.

http://newsblaze.com/business/legal/...awsuits_71825/

On January 5, 2017, the petition for the US Supreme Court to hear the concealed carry appeal in McKay v. Hutchens, the Sheriff of Orange County California is due.

On January 12, 2017, the petition for the US Supreme Court to hear the concealed carry appeal in Peruta v. San Diego is due.

The petitions to the Supreme Court were both due this year but the petitioners (the NRA) asked for, and received, an extension of time to file their petitions. The NRA had asked for a second extension of time to file its petition in the McKay case but it was denied. The NRA has not asked for another extension of time to file its cert petition in the Peruta case.

I never heard about McKay v. Hutchens until I read the above link.

[thallub]

It's very unlikely that SCOTUS will hear this case. Since the rulings in Heller and McDonald SCOTUS has failed to grant cert for several other appeals.

[natman]

Chances are that SCOTUS won't hear any gun related cases until Scalia's replacement is sworn in. 4-4 ties don't do much good.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

You would have to get more than a Scalia replacmement. Also, no guarantee that a 'conservative' appointment will not think reasonable restrictions are just fine - Scalia and Thomas found that out when they tried to take up some good cases.

As many said, there was a serious flaw and antigun folks, not being stupid, went for it.

It might be better to wait until you are truly sure of the court before getting a negative decision.

This was a debate before Heller - go forth with righteous wrath and get an interpretation that cuts the legs off your position. Heller was 5/4. Think if it flipped the other way.

It might be better to fight at the state level. Of course, the antigun states will harden their positions. Places like CA are screwed.

[Aguila Blanca]

Not just CA. CA, CT, MA, MD, NJ, NY ...

[Metal god]

If you followed the Peruta case you know it was complex in some ways . When peruta first filed . Open carry was still allowed . While Peruta wound it's way through the courts CA banned open carry as well .

Long story short the court ignored the fact Peruta no longer had an outlet ( open carry ) and ruled concealed carry was not a right but in a small way left the door open to open carry still being constitutional . How ever they refused to address that in the Peruta case .

Ok now that all said . Is Peruta even the case we want going to the SCOTUS . There is a lot of case law/ruling saying concealed carry is not a right . Most of those decisions were in states that had liberal open carry laws so in the grand scheme of things carrying outside the home was still allowed even though concealed carry was struck down . Which is something the 9th and other courts seem to ignore . They cling to the ruling saying restricting conceal carry is fine . while ignoring the fact those cases and plaintiffs still could open carry if they wanted .

Lets say they take the case , what will they look at ? Will they only view it as a concealed carry case ? If so , case law is not in are favor . What if they consider the fact that CA while the case was on going also banned the plaintiffs only other outlet . What then ? Do they consider that and rule on the case or do they send it back for trial and have it tried using the current laws in place ??

[steve4102]

So what happens after 01/12/2017 if there is no petition to the SC filed?

Is the entire case over?

[Metal god]

Yes if they fail to file the case is over . It sounds likely the next nominee will be held up or at minimum vetted by the senate for a good while . My guess is they won't file in this environment .

[steve4102]

Can it be filed at a later date, or do we need a new case and start this all over again?

[Metal god]

Well we're starting to get above my pay grade here . I believe the only way they can file later is by getting an extension . I have no idea how many one can get or if the duration of each extension is different .

[motorhead0922]

Originally Posted by Meyer

You would have to get more than a Scalia replacmement.

I agree. It is extremely likely that the court is currently 5-3 against carry outside the home.

[Al Norris]

I'm actually surprised no one else posted this. The petition for cert has been filed: petition for writ of certiorari

[Metal god]

Thanks for that , I just don't follow the case like I once did .

[steve4102]

We have a SC split of 4-4.

If they do not grant, then the 9th ruling stands, correct?

If they do grant and rule 4-4, then the 9th stands, correct?

If they do grant and the ruling is 3-5 or worse, then the 9th ruling applies to the entire nation, correct?

Seem like very,very poor odds for a Second Amendment Victory here.

Shoulda waited till we had a solid majority in the SC.

I think this will not be good for America.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I agree. Sometimes gun folks have righteous wrath and fire and lack tactical considerations.

The classic case was the opposition to shall issue carry laws by some gun organizations as all we needed was the 2nd Amend. They were waiting for some gun deity to descend from the Heaven Ranges and make our God Given right just so. Some states had shall issue slowed down for years because of this. Purity gone beserk.

[Aguila Blanca]

The gun rights lawyer I brought in to help me fight my town's anti-gun ordinance phrases it rather succinctly: "Bad cases make bad laws." We have a lawsuit completely drafted and we were just about to file it when the sandy Hook shooting happened and courts all over the country started going nutso. She advised, and I agreed, that it would be better to hold off until the dust settles a bit and courts have a chance to at least think about respecting the Constitution again.

[Metal god]

Is there a place in an argument at the SCOTUS in a case like this to bring up terrorism and how those acts are becoming more and more random . The loan wolf guy is just about anywhere . Is it a worthy argument to even insinuate that as we go about are everyday lives . It's the individual citizen that may need to defend them selves , family and others from random and sudden acts of violence more then any other time in history ? . At least since the revolutionary and civil wars .

Arguing that although maybe not the specific reason the 2nd amendment was added . I'd think terrorism would be a perfect example as to why the founders felt it important the people have the right to keep and bear arms .

[Glenn E. Meyer]

That will have NO impact on the antigun 4 votes. You start with those stacked against you. The 4 'conservatives' are not guaranteed except perhaps for Thomas. Unless you can have a clear, solid progun vote that might carry the wishywashy -it might be a setup for a loss.

In fact, the 4 have not interpreted the Founder's argument as convincing. Raising the spectrum of foreign or inspired terrorism seems to be a good argument for the 'well regulated militia' suggesting guns for the armed forces of the states and that those having guns should be in the militia and must have training. Calling yourself and your gun buddies in your truck a 'militia' would be laughed at by them.

Don't think rational progun arguments will be listened to - anymore, than some folks would listen to a rational antigun argument. Some could be made.

For example, we should ban higher capacity handguns as a large proportion of participants on interforums think that you only fire two to three shots in defense shootings and if you carry more, you are a nut.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Metal God

Is there a place in an argument at the SCOTUS in a case like this to bring up terrorism and how those acts are becoming more and more random . The loan wolf guy is just about anywhere . Is it a worthy argument to even insinuate that as we go about are everyday lives . It's the individual citizen that may need to defend them selves , family and others from random and sudden acts of violence more then any other time in history ? . At least since the revolutionary and civil wars .

Probably not.

In theory, the Supreme Court is supposed to only look at whether or not a law violates the Constitution.

In practice, there are at least four justices currently sitting on the Supreme Court who simply don't like guns and who don't think We the People should be allowed to own guns. They have already demonstrated on multiple occasions that they are willing to set aside judicial reason and contort the letter and the intent of the Constitution in the furtherance of their agenda.

[Tom Servo]

We have a SC split of 4-4.

There's no guarantee Roberts and Kennedy will be on our side in this matter. Bringing a gun case before them right now could be catastrophic.

When a replacement for Scalia is appointed, the thing we have to remember is that he's not a replacement of Scalia. The future Justice may or may not be sympathetic. Even if he is, it may not matter if we don't have Roberts and Kennedy in the bag.

Part of Scalia's legacy was his influence over the other Justices. A new appointee won't have that clout. On the other hand, Breyer and RBG can be expected to keep Sotomayor and Kagan reliably in their camp.

[maestro pistolero]

Absent TWO solid, 2A SCOTUS confirmations it is an uncertain path. But as the brief concludes:

". . . Only this Court’s review can bring clarity to the law.

Absent that review, millions of individuals will be forced to continue to live under legal regimes in which they are denied any outlet to exercise what courts have repeatedly purported to assume is a fundamental constitutional right, while who knows how many other jurisdictions will be emboldened to adopt the same rights-denying approach. If it is indeed to be the law of the nation that ordinary, law- abiding individuals may be flatly deprived of the ability to carry handguns outside the home for self- defense, then at least this Court should be the one to say so."

[ShootistPRS]

Using the documents of the time during which our nation was founded, the papers from which support was provided and the arguments for and against the enumerations of our rights in the constitution it is very easy to show a preponderance of evidence that no government has any power to restrict our rights unless an individual has abused his rights to interfere with the rights of others. It is also clear that such power was never given to the federal government within the constitution and that courts, including the supreme court, can only support the rights of the people and expand those rights but never restrict them.

We have allowed intervention of our rights since the early 20th century and allowed it to progress to the point it is today. It is up to each of us to stand up for our rights and the rights of others in order to remove the controls placed on our rights by an over-reaching government before we lose them entirely.

[JimPage]

Better that the law be in limbo until we are sure we would prevail. No point in cutting our own throats to support our principals.....

[steve4102]

Better that the law be in limbo until we are sure we would prevail. No point in cutting our own throats to support our principals.....

Isn't it to late for that?

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...Petition-1.pdf

[GunXpatriot]

After an extensive research paper on Miller, Heller and McDonald (Only 3 SCOTUS 2A cases) last semester in college...

Even as a pro-gunner, you can make the case that the previous rulings do allow for continued restrictions on the Second Amendment and just set precedent that is not in our favor, but you guys know that. Certainly anything can be overturned, but that still doesn't change the fact of the matter about what the decisions could look like.

Perhaps it's almost a good thing SCOTUS isn't looking into gun rights for the time being. Despite living in NY myself with the whole (un)SAFE Act fiasco, I'd rather most states keep their rights, than have the whole country turn into New York... Just my .02.