November 19, 2014, 11:44 AM | #351 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 566
|
I don't think there has been a formal filing on either Richards or Baker. Threats, but no paper.
IF today is the day the mandate is supposed to issue, which is in contention, there is not time to issue another stay based on a filing. I dunno.
__________________
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will. — Mark Twain |
November 20, 2014, 12:22 AM | #352 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,876
|
I believe when the AG was denied . That started a 14 day clock for her to appeal . The rules say THE LOSING PARTY has 14 day to ask for en-banc . The question seems to be , is the AG a losing party or nobody because she was denied intervening status .
Quote:
How ever if the AG can still appeal the denied intervention . Then that clock does not stop till the 26th and then the judges still have 7 more days from the 26th to either call for en-banc or stop the clock . Also : I'm not sure Gore's 14 day clock ever started . Yes he put in writing he was done with the case and would not appeal the ruling . How ever does his clock still need to run out or as soon as he stated he would not appeal the judges 7 day clock starts ??? ? So this could be done tomorrow or could drag on into the first part of Dec All that being said . Someone on calguns forum just posted that they called the 9th circuit and a clerk informed them the mandate will be handed down on Fri . Now thats a clerk so who knows how accurate that is .
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive ! I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again . Last edited by Metal god; November 20, 2014 at 12:34 AM. |
|
November 20, 2014, 11:08 AM | #353 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 566
|
Three calls by different people, three different answers with a trend toward issuing the mandate tomorrow.
It also appears that motions for en banc have been filed in Richards and Baker. Any stay that arises from those cases will relate only to those venues, it is said, The rest of the 9th's jurisdiction will have to deal with Peruta as ruling law, exposing bastions like Lost Angles to lawsuits they cannot win if they don't comply. The Legislature may try to pass something new to save their fellow travelers. And in other news, the Israelis and Russians are both seeing increases in violent crime at the citizen level. Both have announced that among other responses, easing the rules for citizens to carry are going to be made. How about them apples?
__________________
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will. — Mark Twain |
November 20, 2014, 11:56 AM | #354 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 30, 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 635
|
Quote:
__________________
SAF, ACLDN, IDPA, handgunlaw.us My AmazonSmile benefits SAF I'd rather be carried by 6 than caged by 12. 2020: It's pronounced twenty twenty. |
|
November 20, 2014, 01:03 PM | #355 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 566
|
Motorhead...I should have retracted the comment. Gore is not taking any such action until he gets an order from the local court, which needs the mandate from the 9CA PANEL.
He made an announcement subsequent to the rumor. Pardon me for not correcting things.
__________________
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will. — Mark Twain |
November 27, 2014, 01:34 AM | #356 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Concord, CA
Posts: 193
|
Harris files for en banc reconsideration on the denial of her intervention. See http://michellawyers.com/guncasetrac...rutavsandiego/
__________________
|
November 27, 2014, 11:25 AM | #357 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,299
|
It's a high powered and very expensive WAAAAH!!!!
|
November 28, 2014, 08:47 AM | #358 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,747
|
Quote:
__________________
NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearms Safety, Pistol and Rifle Instructor “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life......” President John F. Kennedy |
|
November 30, 2014, 11:13 PM | #359 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
Can anyone explain the logic to me?
Quoting from the order:
Quote:
Or is it the case that if she prevails either on her argument for timeliness or in her argument that 28 U.S.C. § 2403 / Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.1 provides a basis for her intervention, then she will get an en banc hearing on her motion to intervene? |
|
December 1, 2014, 12:31 AM | #360 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,876
|
My understanding of it is she has asked for en-banc review of her denial to intervene and not the complete decision .That's it at this point , well and not to hand down the mandate which they can do at any time . So what the court must do is determine if they will except or deny that request . As for timeliness . I can see the court saying she did not ask to be apart of the case in a timely manner . How ever I can see them also saying until Gore/San Diego dropped the ball and said they would no longer appeal the case . The AG had no reason to be apart of the case . Gore had been fighting the case tooth and nail from the start . Why would the AG think he was going to just up and quit . I'm sure to her surprise he did just that and as soon as she found out the AG ask to intervene with in the time expected for such an appeal . Maybe it's the independent in me but I see a good argument for both .
Quote:
I'm not sure if that helps but there is no real cut and dry answer . It will come down to how the judges interpret what they read . Who knows how the most over turned court in the land will do that
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive ! I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again . Last edited by Metal god; December 1, 2014 at 12:40 AM. |
|
December 1, 2014, 09:43 PM | #361 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
Quote:
Quote:
That sentence - "A party seeking to intervene must act as soon as he knows or has reason to know that his interests might be adversely affected by the outcome of the litigation" doesn't mean they can choose not to act until one party litigates poorly. How is it that everyone knew what was at stake, except for Kamala Harris? But anyway, really what I am wondering is if the issue of examining 28 U.S.C. § 2403 / Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.1 is predicated first on establishing timeliness - meaning, if the court finds that Kamala Harris' petition was not filed in a timely manner then the issue of 28 U.S.C. § 2403 / Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.1 will not even be considered. |
||
December 2, 2014, 12:31 AM | #362 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 356
|
I was under the impression that the order denied the motion both procedurally (timeliness) and substantively (that the constitutionality of a state statue is not in issue and therefore the AG has no interest in the litigation sufficient to warrant allowing her intervention). So at this point, she has three barriers to success: 1. she must get the panel to reconsider or the Circuit to grant en banc; 2. if en banc review is granted, the she must show she was timely, and
3. That she has a protectable interest in the litigation, contrary to the express holding of the majority in the Peruta decision. If and when she gets all three, then and only then will the panel hear her petition for en banc review, after which there will be an opportunity for a justice to request en banc and the Circuit to vote on that request. Meanwhile, Sheriff Prieto's application for en banc review remains stayed pending the ultimate finality of Peruta at the circuit level. |
December 2, 2014, 01:16 AM | #363 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,876
|
Quote:
The other thing that can and likely happen is while waiting for the Peruta decision . The 9th moves forward with Richards . Then over turn Richards , vacating or mooting Peruta . Or is that possible ? The fact Richards is waiting on Peruta . Can they move forward with Richards if Peruta is not final? Not sure on the rules for that type of thing .
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive ! I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again . |
|
December 3, 2014, 03:18 PM | #364 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,876
|
Plaintiff-Appellants are directed to file a response
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive ! I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again . |
December 3, 2014, 08:05 PM | #365 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,876
|
A judge of the Court made a sua sponte call for a vote on whether
this case should be reheard en banc http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...2-03-2014B.pdf
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive ! I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again . |
December 3, 2014, 08:38 PM | #366 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
Well I guess I will never know now if Harris had to prove timeliness first and foremost.
|
December 4, 2014, 12:23 AM | #367 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 10, 2004
Location: Tioga co. PA
Posts: 2,647
|
File deadline
This order was filed on Dec 03. Add 21 days and you get Dec 25. So do they have 20 days or 22 days?
__________________
USNRET '61-'81 |
December 4, 2014, 12:34 AM | #368 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,876
|
21+3=24th
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive ! I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again . |
December 4, 2014, 12:46 AM | #369 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 10, 2004
Location: Tioga co. PA
Posts: 2,647
|
I guess I need to go back to grade school.
__________________
USNRET '61-'81 |
December 4, 2014, 05:41 PM | #370 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 566
|
Both the responses about intervention and rehearing are due within 21 days of the order, so the documents will be in hand just before Christmas.
I understand the judges have either 14 or 21 days to make up their minds about what to do. One opinion on another blog was that EACH decision could consume 14-21 days. I guess that the intervention decision will have to come first, for without that, there is nobody to argue Gore's position unless Harris is allowed to. Unless they have a draft pick, TBA, on tap. So they string out a decision to decide on Harris 14-21 days after December 24. Then they decide about Harris. That will take another 14-21 days (?). If she loses, it would appear a rehearing of Peruta is off the table, as would be an appeal to SCOTUS. If they decide to let Harris intervene, the 9th's reputation for judicial buffoonery will be enhanced and... Then they string out a decision to rehear Peruta 14-21 days. If rehearing is denied, Harris will spend money CA doesn't have and go to SCOTUS for cert. I dunno, we find out in the middle of 2015 or a little later if cert is granted or denied? If rehearing is approved, the decision can be unpublished immediately after and it will take another couple of years to finally decide. Delay is victory for the statists. They bleed their enemy further and get to keep their scheme running. All that matters is winning or delaying. Either works. Sigh. Methinks the judge who called for sua sponte en banc is pretty sure Harris will be approved to intervene. There is this smell in the air.
__________________
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will. — Mark Twain |
December 4, 2014, 06:45 PM | #371 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,876
|
That sounds about right . I have another thought on the en-banc and why a judge called for it . Now this is just a thought so here it goes . The judge called for it knowing San Diego has no representation , Gore has already put in writing he will no longer appeal the case . Remember Richards was put on hold pending the out come of this case . Richards has already asked for en-banc and all sides are represented in that case .
My thinking is the court will say something like Peruta is inadequately represented for en- banc therefore we shall put Peruta on hold and continue with Richards because there is representation on both sides . That's the way they get around letting the AG intervene . You know they want to let her in but also know letting her intervene is a leap .
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive ! I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again . |
December 6, 2014, 09:44 PM | #372 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 3, 2013
Posts: 1,235
|
Given the recent civil unrest over race relations, I would expect those on the 9th in agreement with Thomas will be aghast at the thought of the citizenry having a right to carry concealed weapons. Whether it be intellectually dishonest or not, I expect the court will vote to hear the appeal en banc, even if the state is not permitted to participate as a party. California/Harris will be allowed to take part as amici.
|
December 25, 2014, 10:35 AM | #373 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,876
|
All the briefs are in . If anyones interested in some light reading , here you go
http://michellawyers.com/guncasetrac...rutavsandiego/
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive ! I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again . |
December 27, 2014, 11:43 PM | #374 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
From the Firearms Policy Coalition amicus brief by Benbrook, this is pretty solid:
Quote:
|
|
December 28, 2014, 01:52 AM | #375 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Well, logic mattered to the Peruta panel. It remains to be seen whether the sua sponte en banc request gets any traction. The sua sponte en banc request is problematic in a number of ways. We have yet to see whether the atty. Gen. is granted intervenor status for one thing.
For another thing, when the case was first started five years ago she argued vehemently (and successfully) that since no law was implicated and since she had no authority to grant or deny licenses that no one should have standing to sue the state. The AG argued that only sherrifs and police has the discretion to grant or deny permits therefore only they could be named as defendants. But Sheriff Gore has bowed out, declining to continue the fight, leaving no one to argue the other side. Then there is the sound reasoning of the Peruta ruling itself. The judicial and logical contortions required to unravel this Heller/McDonald/Moore-based ruling would be quite a grotesque spectacle indeed. Even the most overturned circuit court of appeals in the land doesn't want that egg on their face. Not when they could simply punt it to the Supreme Court using less eyebrow raising means. Judges on the ninth circuit who may be keen to undo Peruta are in quite a pickle, as they must check their brains, reputations, and judicial integrity at the courthouse door to accomplish it. |
|
|