Richards v. Prieto appealed to 9th Circuit - Page 4

Al Norris · March 18, 2014, 10:50 PM

Today, the defendant, Sheriff Ed Prieto has filed his petition for rehearing en banc.

I've only skimmed the file, but it is essentially regurgitating what has all been said before. The file is a 10.5mb scanned pdf and is much too large to upload.

Jim March · March 18, 2014, 11:48 PM

I think that's a non-issue. The judges of the 9th Circuit aren't total idiots. They're either going to approve Peruta for en banc or not. If not, they won't approve Richards.

This is just a PR move on Prieto's part.

press1280 · March 19, 2014, 04:58 AM

It may just signal Prieto may file for cert if en banc is denied. I hope he does.

speedrrracer · March 19, 2014, 09:51 AM

Well, it might change the dynamic the 9th feels wrt the motions to intervene in Peruta, or wrt granting en banc (if the motions are granted).

If the judges on the 9th for some reason feel it's a bit cheesy to have the AG come in at the 11th hour, but they did feel an en banc was reasonable, but maybe didn't want to show their anti-2A stance too blatantly or didn't want to disrespect O'Scanny by voting for one themselves, Prieto has now given the judges on the 9th an "out".

So, they can slap the AG down, and / or save face by pretending to respect O'Scanny's decision, yet still get the case en banc. I don't know if this dynamic exists or is reasonable or what, but it exists in the realm of possibility.

My immediate concern (I think Peruta is a winner before SCOTUS eventually) is getting a virtual shall-issue environment here in CA -- I want the mandate staying Peruta lifted, and I hope that if motions to intervene are denied or en banc is denied in Peruta, then the mandate will be lifted, regardless of what's happening in Prieto.

March 18, 2014, 11:48 PM	#77
Jim March Senior Member Join Date: February 14, 1999 Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA Posts: 7,417	I think that's a non-issue. The judges of the 9th Circuit aren't total idiots. They're either going to approve Peruta for en banc or not. If not, they won't approve Richards. This is just a PR move on Prieto's part. __________________ Jim March

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

March 18, 2014, 10:50 PM	#76
Al Norris Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 29, 2000 Location: Rupert, Idaho Posts: 9,660	Today, the defendant, Sheriff Ed Prieto has filed his petition for rehearing en banc. I've only skimmed the file, but it is essentially regurgitating what has all been said before. The file is a 10.5mb scanned pdf and is much too large to upload.

March 19, 2014, 04:58 AM	#78
press1280 Senior Member Join Date: May 17, 2012 Posts: 228	It may just signal Prieto may file for cert if en banc is denied. I hope he does.

March 19, 2014, 09:51 AM	#79
speedrrracer Senior Member Join Date: December 15, 2011 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 317	Well, it might change the dynamic the 9th feels wrt the motions to intervene in Peruta, or wrt granting en banc (if the motions are granted). If the judges on the 9th for some reason feel it's a bit cheesy to have the AG come in at the 11th hour, but they did feel an en banc was reasonable, but maybe didn't want to show their anti-2A stance too blatantly or didn't want to disrespect O'Scanny by voting for one themselves, Prieto has now given the judges on the 9th an "out". So, they can slap the AG down, and / or save face by pretending to respect O'Scanny's decision, yet still get the case en banc. I don't know if this dynamic exists or is reasonable or what, but it exists in the realm of possibility. My immediate concern (I think Peruta is a winner before SCOTUS eventually) is getting a virtual shall-issue environment here in CA -- I want the mandate staying Peruta lifted, and I hope that if motions to intervene are denied or en banc is denied in Peruta, then the mandate will be lifted, regardless of what's happening in Prieto.