Jump to content

California "May Issue" Ruled Unconstitutional


Chiburbian

Recommended Posts

Thanks Skinny for your post #27.

 

After reading that post I just had to laugh a little. Why, cause what was in the written opinion is what WE already know to be true. It just amazes me that we as non judges, non lawyers and non constitutional scholars have such a good understanding of the second amendment and others don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

San Diego will petition for en banc, and the odds of en banc being granted are rather high as are the odds of this ruling being overturned on en banc. It would behoove San Diego to not push this any further because this, along with Moore, creates a circuit split like none other especially with Judge O'Scannlain's ripping of the Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits' analysis and conclusions in Kachalsky, Drake, and Woollard. For all intents, he stated that they applied rational basis and called it intermediate scrutiny. The silver lining is that Judge Kozinski's term as Chief Judge isn't up til October so he automatically sits on en banc panels. If it is overturned, he will write a scathing dissent which will definitely attract the attention of the Justices.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guam and the Marianas fall under the jurisdiction of CA9 and Guam has a statutory ban on carry. This will be interesting. I'll keep my eye on the Peruta docket. The three cases, Baker v. Kealoha (Hawaii RTC) Richards v. Prieto (CA RTC) and Peruta v. San Diego (CA RTC) and the Court was holding McKay (another may issue challenge) until Baker/Richards/Peruta were ruled on.

 

Let me paint a very disgusting picture for everyone. Peruta's notice of appeal was filed in December, 2010. Richards' was filed in May of 2011. Baker's NOA was filed in June 2012. Oral arguments for these three took place in December 2012. The median time from NOA to disposition in CA9 is 15 months give or take a few days. Contrast that with CA7 where the Moore and Shepard NOAs were filed in February and April of 2012, orals a few months later, opinion and order in December 2012.

 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, now the spoiler. Since this was a may issue law, was there a statutory time table that requires a permit to be issued by a certain number of days once an application is received? Like we have in IL?

If not, they could drag this on by taking their good old time to issue. It would take another trip though the courts to get that resolved.

Plus it looks like these CA permits are good for 2 years and cost $300 by the time its all said and done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...