Hap Posted January 13, 2015 at 01:39 PM Share Posted January 13, 2015 at 01:39 PM 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.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000722 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cls74 Posted March 26, 2015 at 10:41 PM Share Posted March 26, 2015 at 10:41 PM BREAKING: Ninth Circuit Orders En Banc Rehearing in Peruta v. San Diego CCW Lawsuitposted 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.firearmspolicy.org/news/blog/breaking-ninth-circuit-orders-en-banc-rehearing-in-peruta-v-san-diego-ccw-lawsuit/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tvandermyde Posted March 26, 2015 at 10:43 PM Author Share Posted March 26, 2015 at 10:43 PM yup gonna be interesting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkroenlein Posted March 26, 2015 at 10:50 PM Share Posted March 26, 2015 at 10:50 PM The suspense is already killing me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobPistol Posted March 27, 2015 at 01:04 AM Share Posted March 27, 2015 at 01:04 AM 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) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0beit Posted March 27, 2015 at 03:42 AM Share Posted March 27, 2015 at 03:42 AM Not good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tango7 Posted March 27, 2015 at 04:19 AM Share Posted March 27, 2015 at 04:19 AM Can the court do this on their own or is this the result of a petition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domin8 Posted March 27, 2015 at 04:23 AM Share Posted March 27, 2015 at 04:23 AM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoadyRunner Posted March 27, 2015 at 11:38 AM Share Posted March 27, 2015 at 11:38 AM Just another step on the way to SCOTUS.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plinkermostly Posted March 27, 2015 at 12:13 PM Share Posted March 27, 2015 at 12:13 PM ^^^ This. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkroenlein Posted March 27, 2015 at 02:46 PM Share Posted March 27, 2015 at 02:46 PM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoverGunner Posted March 27, 2015 at 03:23 PM Share Posted March 27, 2015 at 03:23 PM 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 ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domin8 Posted March 27, 2015 at 03:23 PM Share Posted March 27, 2015 at 03:23 PM California is dumb enough to push it to SCOTUS. They don't care about anybody else besides themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted March 27, 2015 at 03:32 PM Share Posted March 27, 2015 at 03:32 PM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkroenlein Posted March 27, 2015 at 03:43 PM Share Posted March 27, 2015 at 03:43 PM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miztic Posted March 27, 2015 at 04:01 PM Share Posted March 27, 2015 at 04:01 PM I'm half hoping it will get overturned so we can appeal to SCOTUS and settle this once and for all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chislinger Posted March 27, 2015 at 04:25 PM Share Posted March 27, 2015 at 04:25 PM En banc hearing to be held the week of June 15: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Peruta-v-San-Diego_Order-Setting-En-Banc-Oral-Argument.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domin8 Posted March 27, 2015 at 04:34 PM Share Posted March 27, 2015 at 04:34 PM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmer Fudd Posted March 27, 2015 at 05:01 PM Share Posted March 27, 2015 at 05:01 PM 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. http://i1348.photobucket.com/albums/p725/Beecher_Tool/Screen%20Shot%202015-03-27%20at%2011.52.39%20AM_zpswo17i2zj.png Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miztic Posted March 27, 2015 at 05:28 PM Share Posted March 27, 2015 at 05:28 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chislinger Posted March 27, 2015 at 05:34 PM Share Posted March 27, 2015 at 05:34 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.There's always a chance a few might actually rule on what the law says... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmer Fudd Posted March 27, 2015 at 06:04 PM Share Posted March 27, 2015 at 06:04 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted March 27, 2015 at 06:19 PM Share Posted March 27, 2015 at 06:19 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilphil Posted March 27, 2015 at 07:08 PM Share Posted March 27, 2015 at 07:08 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tvandermyde Posted March 27, 2015 at 07:36 PM Author Share Posted March 27, 2015 at 07:36 PM the new chief judge was the dissenter in the appeals court decision. allegedly on short list for SCOTUS if Obama gets another pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted March 27, 2015 at 08:06 PM Share Posted March 27, 2015 at 08:06 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lou Posted March 27, 2015 at 08:48 PM Share Posted March 27, 2015 at 08:48 PM There's a reason they are known as the 9th Circus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rail Posted March 29, 2015 at 02:11 AM Share Posted March 29, 2015 at 02:11 AM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted March 29, 2015 at 02:11 AM Share Posted March 29, 2015 at 02:11 AM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campfire Posted March 30, 2015 at 01:53 AM Share Posted March 30, 2015 at 01:53 AM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.