March 1, 2014, 03:33 PM | #226 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Yesterday, the mandate was stayed pending a decision of rehearing the case, en banc. Instead of uploading the file, I'll just quote it, as it is very short:
Quote:
|
|
March 1, 2014, 04:33 PM | #227 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 566
|
Quote:
Mr. Norris, I saw a comment in another blog that Peruta does not become effective until the time has run for an appeal to SCOTUS. I thought this incorrect. I thought that if the en banc clock runs out with no action, Peruta then applies...unless and until someone files with SCOTUS (within the 90 day period). Please advise.
__________________
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will. — Mark Twain |
|
March 1, 2014, 07:13 PM | #228 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,299
|
Money and power.
Quote:
Every time we try to protect VOTING rights we end up in the same dilemma, fighting it all the way up to SCOTUS because it might "infringe" on the power of the Federal Government. |
|
March 2, 2014, 06:36 PM | #229 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
Is there a way for CA AG Kamala Harris to appeal the case to the Supreme Court if there either isn't an en banc hearing or the decision of the en banc court reaffirms Peruta?
I didn't think there was a way for someone who wasn't party to the original lawsuit to ask for an en banc hearing... but she obviously did, so now I'm wondering if there is some other possible legal maneuver that the defendants could use to appeal to SCOTUS. Last edited by Luger_carbine; March 2, 2014 at 10:25 PM. |
March 2, 2014, 10:13 PM | #230 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,142
|
Quote:
|
|
March 3, 2014, 12:10 AM | #231 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Concord, CA
Posts: 193
|
Quote:
If it should be taken en banc, then the Feb 13 document becomes an 'un-opinion'. Rehearing will result in a new opinion, 'over-writing' the previous one, though it should be possible for the larger panel to say 'we affirm the opinion issued Feb 13'. If not taken en banc, it might still be accepted for certiorari, and part of the petition for that might be a request for a stay of the opinion, which may or may not be granted.
__________________
Last edited by Librarian; March 3, 2014 at 04:44 AM. |
|
March 3, 2014, 01:02 AM | #232 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
This is why I think that the Motion to Intervene will be granted and the Petition for en banc will be denied.
That allows the AG to petition for cert. It's a fast track to the Supreme Court. Should things happen in this manner, fast enough, Drake may well be held until the Court decides what it will do with Peruta. [after posting this, I really expect KCBrown (from CalGuns.net) to come along and tell me how wrong I am] |
March 3, 2014, 02:41 AM | #233 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
If granted status as an intervening party for the purposes of her en banc request, and if Peruta is upheld, I wonder if there any chance AG Harris would decline to file for cert. (ala Moore/Madigan)
As much as I would like to see Peruta's decision applied to the entire country, I'm not sure it's worth betting the bank on it. The 9th is a huge circuit. That's a LOT of folks who have waited a long time for the restoration of their rights. Part of me just wants to keep the win and let another case come along to spread the love nationwide. I realize that strategy is of little comfort to our friends in NJ, MD, NY, etc. Last edited by maestro pistolero; March 3, 2014 at 02:47 AM. |
March 3, 2014, 03:14 AM | #234 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2013
Posts: 988
|
maestro pistolero, some part of me wants to agree with you, especially being in San Diego, but I'm pretty certain that the SCOTUS would uphold the right to bear arms outside of the home. In light of that, I guess I can wait a couple years to get a CCW in CA if it helps out the whole country. Then again, I'll have moved to a free state by then.
__________________
Semper Fi Marine, NRA member, SAF Defender's Club member, and constitutionally protected keeper and bearer of firearms |
March 3, 2014, 12:33 PM | #235 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 566
|
Anti's revving up.
Summary of briefs filed against Peruta and urging en banc:
02/27/2014 121 Filed (ECF) Amici Curiae California Peace Officers Association and California Police Chiefs Association petition for rehearing en banc (from 02/13/2014 opinion). Date of service: 02/27/2014. [8996109]--[COURT UPDATE: Attached searchable version of petition. Resent NDA. 02/27/2014 by RY] (PRC) 02/27/2014 122 Submitted (ECF) Intervenor brief for review and filed Motion to intervene. Submitted by State of California. Date of service: 02/27/2014. [8996638] (GDB) 02/27/2014 123 Submitted (ECF) Intervenor brief for review and filed Motion to intervene. Submitted by Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Date of service: 02/27/2014. [8996736] (NRO) 02/27/2014 124 Filed (ECF) Amicus Curiae Legal Community Against Violence petition for rehearing en banc (from 02/13/2014 opinion). Date of service: 02/27/2014. [8996737] (SJF) http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com...of-peruta.html I thought this is relevant because of the two petitions to be granted standing. As said before, if the standing to intervene is granted and en banc denied, then those with standing can go to SCOTUS, which can put a hold on any permits filed under Peruta. The 9th clearly decided to accept these briefs, so they are all runners. Question: Does a petition for en banc create standing to file for cert in the same way a petition for intervention does, also?
__________________
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will. — Mark Twain Last edited by HarrySchell; March 3, 2014 at 01:17 PM. |
March 3, 2014, 02:40 PM | #236 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
My prediction, as posted at Maryland Shooters:
Quote:
|
|
March 3, 2014, 04:22 PM | #237 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 566
|
I bet Harris gets something out of this as a political sop to the "liberal" constituencies.
She ought to be hoisted on her own petard, IMO, because in fact her dog is NOT in this fight. The CA AG doesn't enforce any laws about carry permits, and doesn't write them. Ms. Harris should learn to be more careful in her thinking. She isn't, especially when it comes to the engineering and manufacturing implications of microstamping. She has spent no time at either trade, but she "knows it's feasible". Too clever by half.
__________________
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will. — Mark Twain |
March 3, 2014, 10:59 PM | #238 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Concord, CA
Posts: 193
|
I'm at the point where I have bookmarked the 9th Circuit's Peruta page - http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/..._id=0000000722
Such a soap opera! I can't wait for the next installment! (Nothing new there by 8 PM Pacific on Monday March 3)
__________________
|
March 4, 2014, 09:41 AM | #239 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
|
|
March 4, 2014, 12:08 PM | #240 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 566
|
Quote:
At the rate felons are being released, the sooner I can carry the happier I will be. I'd love a win at SCOTUS and that is the moral thing to do, but...
__________________
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will. — Mark Twain |
|
March 4, 2014, 12:08 PM | #241 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,417
|
We should remember that sometimes a US Supreme Court loss turns into a win.
In Kelo we got screwed on the entire issue of local governments taking property away from one private owner and gifting it to another at gunpoint. We got laws passed in many states in response banning that crap. Either way we need an answer so we can start fighting back, either legislatively or in the courts.
__________________
Jim March Last edited by Tom Servo; March 4, 2014 at 12:49 PM. Reason: Let's not go there |
March 4, 2014, 12:51 PM | #242 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 30, 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 635
|
Right now we have a clear win in Peruta. I think it would be good if the SC did not hear the case, but instead let it stand as is, with appropriate language. Let a win stay a win.
Drake is the one we want them to hear. Drake is a loss right now. Let the SC hear (overturn) a loss, not a win.
__________________
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. |
March 4, 2014, 12:54 PM | #243 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
First off, in states like New Jersey, New York, California, and others, you might see every form of carry permit issuance taken off the table. At best, they'd keep their existing system with little incentive to change. More permissive states probably would probably just keep doing what they're doing. Second, it would be a step back to boxing in and reducing the scope of the RKBA. A loss here could leave us with the Heller dicta that the right essentially applies to a single, registered handgun for home defense and that's it. Future 2A litigation would be untenable for a very long time.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
March 4, 2014, 01:20 PM | #244 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
B) If Drake falls, Peruta would be all but nullified as well- so even if they heard Drake, and upheld our loss there, our win in Peruta is on very thin ice. Even if the window for challenging Peruta had passed and no avenue of appeal was there to re-open it, the next similar case would overturn the Peruta opinion. C) You're forgetting one of the first and most common observations about Peruta- namely it's importance as a Circuit split. Peruta was considered/speculated (here at least) to be the nail in the coffin encapsulating SCOTUS reluctance to decide carry outside the home. With a nearly 1:1 split concerning half the country it was predicted SCOTUS wouldn't be able to leave Drake and the rest alone anymore. Ergo: Even IF Peruta is "left as a win", it's not likely to be left alone. Leaving Peruta as a win, means Drake, and possibly Peruta and others will likely be heard. Even if it is Drake alone, the repercussions for Peruta, Moore, Woolard?, and others are still there. I could be wrong, and if I am I'm sure one of the pros on here will point out where, but that's the gist I'm getting. IF Peruta stands, the Drake is almost assured Cert. IF Drake gets Cert, Peruta, Moore, Woolard, and other carry cases are all going to be affected by the decision. If that's the case, I want Peruta in there anyway. I want O'Scannlain's opinion with it's near plagiaristic citing and imitation of the Heller decision in front of the Court that wrote Heller. |
|
March 4, 2014, 02:15 PM | #245 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 317
|
Quote:
If both cases are equal in that regard, then perhaps having them hear a loss is better, for the reason you mention. I do agree with JimDandy when he said, in effect, "I want as much of O'Scanns opinion in front of SCOTUS as we can get." |
|
March 4, 2014, 04:24 PM | #246 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 566
|
Quote:
__________________
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will. — Mark Twain |
|
March 5, 2014, 11:56 PM | #247 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Concord, CA
Posts: 193
|
New order today - http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...-Intervene.pdf
Peruta team to respond to CA AG, Brady, CPOA filings, by March 26.
__________________
|
March 6, 2014, 10:37 AM | #248 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
What are the chances that Gore throws Harris under the bus for not getting involved in the first place, opposing her attempt to intervene after he surrendered?
|
March 6, 2014, 11:14 AM | #249 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,955
|
Quote:
|
|
March 6, 2014, 11:21 AM | #250 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
By saying what others have already been saying. She has repeatedly backed out of these sorts of cases in the past, and is only trying to intervene in this one after the fact, when it was a loss. That, as she's said in the past, she doesn't set the policy or pass the laws, so its not within her job description. The sort of thing you can see earlier in the thread where people have speculated about the slap on the wrist she might get from the judges themselves.
|
|
|