Xwing Posted November 13, 2014 at 01:06 AM Share Posted November 13, 2014 at 01:06 AM Great to see this news today! Sounds like CA is on the verge of becoming "Shall Issue" (unless they appeal to US Supreme Court and are granted another stay) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domin8 Posted November 13, 2014 at 01:39 AM Share Posted November 13, 2014 at 01:39 AM Guam, also under the 9th's jurisdiction, sees the writing on the wall. They are going Shall Issue. I suspect there won't be an appeal of any case lost by the antis coming out of the 9th District. It's interesting watching this all shape up. Washington just got added to the list of places to not accept orders, and California and Hawaii look to be getting off that list soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C0untZer0 Posted November 13, 2014 at 03:40 AM Share Posted November 13, 2014 at 03:40 AM The order: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2014/11/12/10-56971%20Peruta%2011-12-14%20Order.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C0untZer0 Posted November 13, 2014 at 04:03 AM Share Posted November 13, 2014 at 04:03 AM Well first of all - the Brady Bunch filing to intervene was a joke. It just shows the embarrassingly low level of legal expertise the Brady Campaign has - what a bunch of morons. Denying California AG motion to intervene means the case is over, except for a possible sua sponte en banc hearing Sheriff Gore already indicated he wouldn't appeal, and he didn't ask for an en banc hearing. Basically the California AG, Kamala Harris ignored this case the whole time it made its way through the courts and EVEN AFTER CA9 ruled against San Diego. She only made a motion to intervene when Sherrif Gore decided not to ask for an en banc hearing - and that is not timely. BTW, SCOTUS passed on Kachalsky, Woollard and Kwong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkroenlein Posted November 13, 2014 at 04:39 AM Share Posted November 13, 2014 at 04:39 AM I find exceptional joy in the word "denied" in bold, all caps, three times at the end of the order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C0untZer0 Posted November 13, 2014 at 05:20 AM Share Posted November 13, 2014 at 05:20 AM If anyone is interested in the legal technicality - technically, California's "May Issue" has not been ruled unconstitutional, what has changed is that previously the sheriff was able to say that the desire to defend one's self did not constitute "good cause" Now all that is necessary to prove good cause is to claim the right to self defense under the Second Amendment - and governing bodies in the 9th Circuit must accept that as good cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hap Posted November 13, 2014 at 01:33 PM Share Posted November 13, 2014 at 01:33 PM This is great news. Finally Dianne Feinstein can get her carry permit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domin8 Posted November 13, 2014 at 02:17 PM Share Posted November 13, 2014 at 02:17 PM Feinstein doesn't need a permit. The Second Amendment is the only permit she needs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gangrel Posted November 13, 2014 at 02:30 PM Share Posted November 13, 2014 at 02:30 PM California is going to be under tremendous pressure to not appeal this until Obama or our next President has had a chance to replace one of the pro constitution SCOTUS justices with an activist. I would wager they file the appeal to the SCOTUS on the last possible day or damn near that Replacing Ruth Bader Ginsburg isn't going to help him . Kennedy and Scalia have not shown any intention of retiring anytime soon. Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C0untZer0 Posted November 13, 2014 at 02:44 PM Share Posted November 13, 2014 at 02:44 PM California is going to be under tremendous pressure to not appeal this until Obama or our next President has had a chance to replace one of the pro constitution SCOTUS justices with an activist. I would wager they file the appeal to the SCOTUS on the last possible day or damn near that California lost its chance to appeal because their Attorney General Kamala Harris was asleep at the wheel. She ignored the case, even after the ruling, then she filed a motion to intervene - which was denied. California cannot appeal this. There is a chance however that one or more judges in the 9th Circuit can sua sponte call for an en banc review. That is what we're waiting for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miztic Posted November 13, 2014 at 03:24 PM Share Posted November 13, 2014 at 03:24 PM California is going to be under tremendous pressure to not appeal this until Obama or our next President has had a chance to replace one of the pro constitution SCOTUS justices with an activist. I would wager they file the appeal to the SCOTUS on the last possible day or damn near that California lost its chance to appeal because their Attorney General Kamala Harris was asleep at the wheel. She ignored the case, even after the ruling, then she filed a motion to intervene - which was denied. California cannot appeal this. There is a chance however that one or more judges in the 9th Circuit can sua sponte call for an en banc review. That is what we're waiting for now. But the sherriff has said he doesn't want to appeal, how does that work with the 9th circuit judges deciding to do an en-banc anyway?This isn't going to scotus [unfortunately], maybe Palmer will end up there, which might be a better case anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
borgranta Posted November 13, 2014 at 03:38 PM Share Posted November 13, 2014 at 03:38 PM Would Attorney General Kamala Harris pressure the Sheriff to appeal to en banc review? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chislinger Posted November 13, 2014 at 03:54 PM Share Posted November 13, 2014 at 03:54 PM How long is the door open for a en banc review? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C0untZer0 Posted November 13, 2014 at 04:07 PM Share Posted November 13, 2014 at 04:07 PM Would Attorney General Kamala Harris pressure the Sheriff to appeal to en banc review? It is too late, the time for parties to file for an en banc review has passed. I don't know how long the judges have to call for a vote in this case, the rules say 7 days from the expiration of the time from the parties' time to file a motion for en banc - but in this case they took time to assess if Kamala Harris could intervene or not. if I recall from Moore, the process takes a number of weeks. First there is a period of time which can be a week or a few weeks, for any judge to call for a vote, if a judge calls for a vote, a vote is scheduled for the next meeting of the court, if, at the meeting, a majority of judges vote to review the case, the case will be scheduled for an en-banc hearing, and I think the first that the public hears about it is when the case shows up on the docket to be reheard. I think best case scenario judges have 7 days from today to make a sua sponte en banc call, 21 days worst case scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C0untZer0 Posted November 13, 2014 at 04:13 PM Share Posted November 13, 2014 at 04:13 PM But the sherriff has said he doesn't want to appeal, how does that work with the 9th circuit judges deciding to do an en-banc anyway? Any judge on the 9th Circuit can call for an en banc hearing, it is called sua sponte en banc call. http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Ninth-Circuit-En-Banc-Procedure-Guide.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillR Posted November 13, 2014 at 07:57 PM Share Posted November 13, 2014 at 07:57 PM That clears it up LOL It is either 7, 10, 14, 21, 30, 52 or 90 days.... (and/or any combination of them) :unsure: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chislinger Posted November 13, 2014 at 09:16 PM Share Posted November 13, 2014 at 09:16 PM Would Attorney General Kamala Harris pressure the Sheriff to appeal to en banc review? It is too late, the time for parties to file for an en banc review has passed. I don't know how long the judges have to call for a vote in this case, the rules say 7 days from the expiration of the time from the parties' time to file a motion for en banc - but in this case they took time to assess if Kamala Harris could intervene or not. if I recall from Moore, the process takes a number of weeks. First there is a period of time which can be a week or a few weeks, for any judge to call for a vote, if a judge calls for a vote, a vote is scheduled for the next meeting of the court, if, at the meeting, a majority of judges vote to review the case, the case will be scheduled for an en-banc hearing, and I think the first that the public hears about it is when the case shows up on the docket to be reheard. I think best case scenario judges have 7 days from today to make a sua sponte en banc call, 21 days worst case scenario. As I understand it every Circuit has its own rules, so the rules in the 7th Circuit's Moore decision have no bearing on the 9th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C0untZer0 Posted November 14, 2014 at 02:06 AM Share Posted November 14, 2014 at 02:06 AM Would Attorney General Kamala Harris pressure the Sheriff to appeal to en banc review? It is too late, the time for parties to file for an en banc review has passed. I don't know how long the judges have to call for a vote in this case, the rules say 7 days from the expiration of the time from the parties' time to file a motion for en banc - but in this case they took time to assess if Kamala Harris could intervene or not. if I recall from Moore, the process takes a number of weeks. First there is a period of time which can be a week or a few weeks, for any judge to call for a vote, if a judge calls for a vote, a vote is scheduled for the next meeting of the court, if, at the meeting, a majority of judges vote to review the case, the case will be scheduled for an en-banc hearing, and I think the first that the public hears about it is when the case shows up on the docket to be reheard. I think best case scenario judges have 7 days from today to make a sua sponte en banc call, 21 days worst case scenario. As I understand it every Circuit has its own rules, so the rules in the 7th Circuit's Moore decision have no bearing on the 9th. Yes, but neither circuit advertises to the public such things like - if a judge called for a vote or some of the internal proceedings of the court. So it may be a while before we find out if there is going to be an en banc hearing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blade13 Posted November 15, 2014 at 12:37 AM Share Posted November 15, 2014 at 12:37 AM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted November 15, 2014 at 03:45 AM Share Posted November 15, 2014 at 03:45 AM This is the best analysis I've read to date about this case, potential challenges, and a preview of what could happen in other related cases within the 9th circuit court and beyond: http://www.calgunlaws.com/ca-nra-ila-legal-update-california-one-step-closer-to-shall-issue/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCroskey Posted November 16, 2014 at 04:19 AM Share Posted November 16, 2014 at 04:19 AM Feinstein doesn't need a permit. The Second Amendment is the only permit she needs. Politicians don't have to follow rules, those are for everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted November 16, 2014 at 04:23 AM Share Posted November 16, 2014 at 04:23 AM Almost like a ruling class. Ruling class with different rules, a single authority that makes laws as they see fit, and stupid taxes.....reminds me of something from history class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianj - now in Kansas Posted November 16, 2014 at 02:15 PM Share Posted November 16, 2014 at 02:15 PM Almost like a ruling class. Ruling class with different rules, a single authority that makes laws as they see fit, and stupid taxes.....reminds me of something from history class. And literature class. Something about some pigs being more equal than others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neumann Posted November 16, 2014 at 05:35 PM Share Posted November 16, 2014 at 05:35 PM Does Peruta v San Diego apply just to San Diego, or to all counties in California? Requiring special circumstances for a permit is county policy, not state law. I think in Hawaii and other states or territories under the 9th Circuit, state law may be an issue, and was not part of the Peruta decision per se. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chislinger Posted November 16, 2014 at 06:38 PM Share Posted November 16, 2014 at 06:38 PM Does Peruta v San Diego apply just to San Diego, or to all counties in California? Requiring special circumstances for a permit is county policy, not state law. I think in Hawaii and other states or territories under the 9th Circuit, state law may be an issue, and was not part of the Peruta decision per se.Technically just San Diego, but any other place under the 9th Circuit jurisdiction that disallows self defense as good cause is ripe to lose a lawsuit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neumann Posted November 16, 2014 at 10:58 PM Share Posted November 16, 2014 at 10:58 PM If more lawsuits are necessary, it would be good to seek class status. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmer Fudd Posted November 16, 2014 at 11:51 PM Share Posted November 16, 2014 at 11:51 PM There is no constitutional grounds for an outright ban."....to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...."It doesn't get any clearer than that.Who would like to be on the losing side when SCOTUS' hands are forced?If the court actually grows a pair and acknowledge that there ARE rights that are absolute... like the Bill of Rights,it will do two things, state the obvious and end the careers of those who sought to take these rights away.And in this information age, I don't think many people are willing to take being stripped of their rights lightly.The first argument about the 2A isn't one I would be on that...if the will is there they will find a way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.