Jump to content


Photo

Breaking news on Peruta -- NO APPEAL


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
143 replies to this topic

#61 Hap

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,858 posts
  • Joined: 16-May 13

Posted 13 January 2015 - 07:39 AM

CA9 has set up a page specfically for Peruta. It appears to have the full set of documents pertaining to the request for en banc review, plus the original oral argument and opinion.

 

Due to the level of interest in this case, this site has been created to notify the media and public of procedures and rules for admission to proceedings, as well as access to case information.

 

Please check this website regularly for updates.

 

http://www.ca9.uscou...k_id=0000000722


Ad utrumque paratus


#62 cls74

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,163 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 13

Posted 26 March 2015 - 04:41 PM

BREAKING: Ninth Circuit Orders En Banc Rehearing in Peruta v. San Diego CCW Lawsuit
posted on March 26, 2015


In new orders released moments ago, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered an en banc (full court) rehearing in the landmark Second Amendment right-to-carry lawsuits Peruta v. San Diego and Richards v. Yolo County Sheriff Ed Prieto....


https://www.firearms...go-ccw-lawsuit/

#63 Tvandermyde

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,758 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 09

Posted 26 March 2015 - 04:43 PM

yup gonna be interesting


While a 9 mm or .40 caliber bullet may or may not expand, it is an undeniable fact that a .45 caliber bullet will never shrink.

#64 tkroenlein

    OFFICIAL MEMBER

  • Members
  • 8,712 posts
  • Joined: 12-January 13

Posted 26 March 2015 - 04:50 PM

The suspense is already killing me.



#65 BobPistol

    Member

  • Members
  • 8,314 posts
  • Joined: 24-February 13

Posted 26 March 2015 - 07:04 PM

That's a strong argument and should put an end to it. Considering it's California, you think it's going to matter?

 

Logic?  Reasoning?  With leftists?

Well, we know how that turned out :)

(hint: it failed)


Edited by BobPistol, 26 March 2015 - 07:04 PM.

The Second Amendment of the Constitution protects the rest.

#66 s0beit

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 424 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 13

Posted 26 March 2015 - 09:42 PM

Not good

#67 Tango7

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,805 posts
  • Joined: 06-November 08

Posted 26 March 2015 - 10:19 PM

Can the court do this on their own or is this the result of a petition?
You will not 'rise to the occasion', you will default to your level of training - plan accordingly.

Despite their rallying around us at election time, honoring only 8 hours of Illinois' 40+ hour law enforcement class towards a 16 hour requirement shows the contempt that our elected officials hold us in.

#68 domin8

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,708 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 13

Posted 26 March 2015 - 10:23 PM

Iirc, and I'm no legal scholar, skinny said something awhile back in another thread about how a judge with the particular court could have some influence on this via a petition, or something to that affect.
Uinta Firearms Training, Inc.
a subsidiary of Uinta Preparations, Corp.

Supporting Member
NRA Life Member
ISRA Member
USCCA Member
SAF Member
NRA Basic Pistol Instructor
NRA Basic Rifle Instructor
NRA Basic Shotgun Instructor
NRA Personal Protection Inside the Home Instructor
Utah Concealed Firearms Permit Instructor

NRA Range Safety Officer


Training@UintaFirearms.com

#69 RoadyRunner

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,893 posts
  • Joined: 03-October 12

Posted 27 March 2015 - 05:38 AM

Just another step on the way to SCOTUS....

IC Supporting member
NRA life member
NRA certified Basic Pistol Instructor

Illinois Certified Concealed Carry Instructor

 


#70 Plinkermostly

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 677 posts
  • Joined: 20-April 13

Posted 27 March 2015 - 06:13 AM

^^^ This.



#71 tkroenlein

    OFFICIAL MEMBER

  • Members
  • 8,712 posts
  • Joined: 12-January 13

Posted 27 March 2015 - 08:46 AM

Just another step on the way to SCOTUS....


My guess if it is upheld they will push it no further. If it's overturned, it's anyone's guess if SCOTUS hears it.

My money is on it gets upheld.

Edited by tkroenlein, 27 March 2015 - 08:47 AM.


#72 DoverGunner

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,851 posts
  • Joined: 13-March 13

Posted 27 March 2015 - 09:23 AM

 

Just another step on the way to SCOTUS....


My guess if it is upheld they will push it no further. If it's overturned, it's anyone's guess if SCOTUS hears it.

My money is on it gets upheld.

 

As in the Ruling / Law stands ? or Sorry guys you are SOL ????



#73 domin8

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,708 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 13

Posted 27 March 2015 - 09:23 AM

California is dumb enough to push it to SCOTUS. They don't care about anybody else besides themselves.
Uinta Firearms Training, Inc.
a subsidiary of Uinta Preparations, Corp.

Supporting Member
NRA Life Member
ISRA Member
USCCA Member
SAF Member
NRA Basic Pistol Instructor
NRA Basic Rifle Instructor
NRA Basic Shotgun Instructor
NRA Personal Protection Inside the Home Instructor
Utah Concealed Firearms Permit Instructor

NRA Range Safety Officer


Training@UintaFirearms.com

#74 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,540 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 27 March 2015 - 09:32 AM

CA9 granted en banc in Peruta and Richards in its orders list released yesterday, "THOMAS, Chief Judge: Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35(a) and Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion and order denying motions to intervene shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit." Dunno how they are gonna hear the cases, consolidated or not.

Edited by skinnyb82, 27 March 2015 - 09:32 AM.

NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#75 tkroenlein

    OFFICIAL MEMBER

  • Members
  • 8,712 posts
  • Joined: 12-January 13

Posted 27 March 2015 - 09:43 AM


 

Just another step on the way to SCOTUS....


My guess if it is upheld they will push it no further. If it's overturned, it's anyone's guess if SCOTUS hears it.My money is on it gets upheld.
 


As in the Ruling / Law stands ? or Sorry guys you are SOL ????


It will stand with May Issue being struck down, and proceed no further in the courts. That's my guess anyway.

#76 miztic

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,164 posts
  • Joined: 22-February 12

Posted 27 March 2015 - 10:01 AM

I'm half hoping it will get overturned so we can appeal to SCOTUS and settle this once and for all.


The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants.


#77 chislinger

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,108 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 13

Posted 27 March 2015 - 10:25 AM

En banc hearing to be held the week of June 15: http://michellawyers...al-Argument.pdf
"I'm not worried about following the U.S. Constitution." - Washington County, Alabama Judge Nick Williams

#78 domin8

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,708 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 13

Posted 27 March 2015 - 10:34 AM

I'm half hoping it will get overturned so we can appeal to SCOTUS and settle this once and for all.

That's risky. SCOTUS has no obligation to hear the case. If your scenario plays out it could be bad news for our side. Even in the en banc hearing we want a ruling in our favor. We are playing for keeps, and can't take a loss on this one.

Edited by domin8, 27 March 2015 - 10:34 AM.

Uinta Firearms Training, Inc.
a subsidiary of Uinta Preparations, Corp.

Supporting Member
NRA Life Member
ISRA Member
USCCA Member
SAF Member
NRA Basic Pistol Instructor
NRA Basic Rifle Instructor
NRA Basic Shotgun Instructor
NRA Personal Protection Inside the Home Instructor
Utah Concealed Firearms Permit Instructor

NRA Range Safety Officer


Training@UintaFirearms.com

#79 Elmer Fudd

    CPA

  • Members
  • 5,899 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 13

Posted 27 March 2015 - 11:01 AM

Just in case anyone is curious, here is the list of current active CA-9 judges......I am VERY MUCH concerned that an en banc ruling is going to go against us in this case given the composition of the CA-9 judges.

 

Screen%20Shot%202015-03-27%20at%2011.52.



#80 miztic

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,164 posts
  • Joined: 22-February 12

Posted 27 March 2015 - 11:28 AM

It's completely messed up that you can tell how a judge is going to vote based on who appointed them/what their politics are.


The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants.


#81 chislinger

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,108 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 13

Posted 27 March 2015 - 11:34 AM

It's completely messed up that you can tell how a judge is going to vote based on who appointed them/what their politics are.

There's always a chance a few might actually rule on what the law says...
"I'm not worried about following the U.S. Constitution." - Washington County, Alabama Judge Nick Williams

#82 Elmer Fudd

    CPA

  • Members
  • 5,899 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 13

Posted 27 March 2015 - 12:04 PM

It's completely messed up that you can tell how a judge is going to vote based on who appointed them/what their politics are.

Actually that is a two way street......the partisanship blame belongs to all of them.



#83 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,397 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 27 March 2015 - 12:19 PM

The fact that the court voted to hear the case en banc doesn't bode well for the final outcome. If the majority agreed with the 3-member panel decision, they would have left it alone.

Edited by kwc, 27 March 2015 - 12:20 PM.

"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#84 ilphil

    Ornery Skeptic

  • Members
  • 2,843 posts
  • Joined: 29-January 05

Posted 27 March 2015 - 01:08 PM

Not sure if this still is true, but as of a few years ago the 9th Circuit had the dubious distinction of being overturned by SCOTUS more than any other circuit.

Just something to keep in mind...



#85 Tvandermyde

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,758 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 09

Posted 27 March 2015 - 01:36 PM

the new chief judge was the dissenter in the appeals court decision. 

 

allegedly on short list for SCOTUS if Obama gets another pick. 


While a 9 mm or .40 caliber bullet may or may not expand, it is an undeniable fact that a .45 caliber bullet will never shrink.

#86 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,540 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 27 March 2015 - 02:06 PM

Yeah, Judge Kozinski is no longer Chief Judge as his term expired in December, which is why there is no scathing disssnt to the granting of rehearing en banc. The Chief Judge also automatically has a vote. This is ridiculous. District judges dismissed both Peruta and Richards, CA9 reversed and remanded, now it looks like the Court will reverse the panel. If that doesn't catch the eye of SCOTUS, I don't know what will.
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#87 Lou

    Resident Old Guy

  • Members
  • 13,075 posts
  • Joined: 18-May 04

Posted 27 March 2015 - 02:48 PM

There's a reason they are known as the 9th Circus.

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. -  George Orwell

A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and don't have one, you'll probably never need one again. 


#88 Rail

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 210 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 08

Posted 28 March 2015 - 08:11 PM

The way the Ninth Circuit "works" is that on en banc re-hearing, a panel of 11 judges is randomly selected by the clerk of the court. In all other circuits, every sitting judge is part of the panel that re-hears a case. So basically, assuming that all Republican appointees will vote to uphold the original ruling and that all Democratic appointees will vote to overturn, things do not look good for our side with GOP appointees being outnumbered 2:1.

 

My prediction is that the decision will be overturned, and SCOTUS will grant cert upon appeal. Rumor has it that this is the case they want: it has the right plaintiffs, it has Paul Clement arguing on our side, and it is backed by the NRA.

 

If by some miracle, the decision is upheld as is en banc, California will not appeal: Bloomberg will make a personal call to Kamala Harris (their version of Lisa Madigan) and order her not to appeal if she wants her seat in the United States Senate that's being vacated by Barbara Boxer.


Edited by Rail, 28 March 2015 - 08:12 PM.


#89 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,540 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 28 March 2015 - 08:11 PM

My understanding is that the panel rulings in Peruta and Richards are not being reheard...technically speaking.  The panel's denial of Harris' petition to intervene is what is being reviewed by the court.  Funny how she wanted nothing to do with Mehl v. Blanas because she said the AG's office does not, cannot exercise oversight in regard to how permits are issued on a county-to-county basis and, all of the sudden, the CA AG DOES exercise oversight over individual Sheriffs' permit issuance policies (the CA AG cannot tell Sheriffs what they can and cannot do as long as they are acting within the scope of the law).  It's really funny how an unfavorable court ruling can change someone's mind.  "I was for it before I was against it." 

 

I think that this is the first time in history that any federal appellate court has granted rehearing en banc in regard to a three-judge panel's denial of a motion to intervene. Chief Judge Thomas is already beginning to show his true colors.  He's the sole dissenter on the panel and pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3, has an automatic seat on the en banc panel.  Wow, how convenient.  This is a ploy to get the panel ruling vacated, sent back to district, back up to CA9, and by the time it makes it out of CA9 (for a second time), the Heller majority will be six feet under.  They don't care if it a subsequent panel rules the same as the three-judge panel in Peruta/Richards/Baker.  If that happens, I'm sure that the judges on the court will use some convoluted legal reasoning to vacate that ruling as well.


NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#90 Campfire

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 67 posts
  • Joined: 01-February 13

Posted 29 March 2015 - 07:53 PM

My understanding is that the panel rulings in Peruta and Richards are not being reheard...technically speaking.  The panel's denial of Harris' petition to intervene is what is being reviewed by the court.  Funny how she wanted nothing to do with Mehl v. Blanas because she said the AG's office does not, cannot exercise oversight in regard to how permits are issued on a county-to-county basis and, all of the sudden, the CA AG DOES exercise oversight over individual Sheriffs' permit issuance policies (the CA AG cannot tell Sheriffs what they can and cannot do as long as they are acting within the scope of the law).  It's really funny how an unfavorable court ruling can change someone's mind.  "I was for it before I was against it." 
 
I think that this is the first time in history that any federal appellate court has granted rehearing en banc in regard to a three-judge panel's denial of a motion to intervene. Chief Judge Thomas is already beginning to show his true colors.  He's the sole dissenter on the panel and pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3, has an automatic seat on the en banc panel.  Wow, how convenient.  This is a ploy to get the panel ruling vacated, sent back to district, back up to CA9, and by the time it makes it out of CA9 (for a second time), the Heller majority will be six feet under.  They don't care if it a subsequent panel rules the same as the three-judge panel in Peruta/Richards/Baker.  If that happens, I'm sure that the judges on the court will use some convoluted legal reasoning to vacate that ruling as well.



Skinny, the order says the "case" is being reheard, but shows the State of California as intervenor-pending. Could it be that they really are re-hearing the entire case and not just the request to intervene? Either way, seems like the intent should be made more clear in the orders.

Edited by Campfire, 29 March 2015 - 07:55 PM.