SAF v NJ (MULLER et al v. MAENZA et al)

[ryan_j 0]

What just happened that brought you to that conclusion?

Harris motion to intervene.

[NJPatriot 0]

Harris motion to intervene.

Your posts are usually more optimistic on this topic.  I don't think it there any guarantee that it will be heard en banc simply because she is requesting it.  She had opportunities to be a party to the litigation and did not take advantage.  And then again even if it is heard en banc, the Drake case as laid out by A. Gura has plenty of disgreement within State high courts as well.

[ryan_j 0]

I'm only pessimistic if they hear it en banc. If they don't, then I'm wildly optimistic.

[ChrisJM981 924]

I'm only pessimistic if they hear it en banc. If they don't, then I'm wildly optimistic.

I was under the impression the SAF requested en banc in the 3rd district and was denied. Hopefully the 9th follows suit.

[ryan_j 0]

I was under the impression the SAF requested en banc in the 3rd district and was denied. Hopefully the 9th follows suit.

 

9th is a different deal entirely. Much more liberal court and a lot of pressure on them to rehear the case.

[Spartiati 63]

I'm only pessimistic if they hear it en banc. If they don't, then I'm wildly optimistic.

Wow thats quite a change in optimisim. Why do you think now there is a better chance a judge will ask for en banc? Just because Harris is crying now? When is the deadline to do so?

[Vlad G 345]

Well .. they also cover some VERY pro gun states so they might have some other pressures as well. Also, crap do we need some court rearrangement. The courts seem really uneven

 

[PDM 91]

Judge Kozinski, Chief Judge of the 9th Circuit, is extremely pro-2A.  Don't know how much sway he has over decision to rehear en banc.  In any event, en banc rehearings are generally very rare, but perhaps due to the sensitivity here they will take it.

[ryan_j 0]

Maybe I'm just panicking because I smell victory and it is SO CLOSE. 

[ryan_j 0]

Judge Kozinski, Chief Judge of the 9th Circuit, is extremely pro-2A.  Don't know how much sway he has over decision to rehear en banc.  In any event, en banc rehearings are generally very rare, but perhaps due to the sensitivity here they will take it.

 

Maybe. Any one judge on the 9th circuit can call for an en banc hearing. If that happens, they will hold a vote and that vote will determine if they rehear it en banc.

 

Unlike other courts, there are just so many judges in the 9th circuit that the en banc hearing is decided by a panel of 10 judges (10 or 11, I can't remember) instead of the entire court. 

 

It is extremely common for the 9th to rehear cases en banc. 

 

But they may very well decide not to.

 

Here's the thing, if they decide to make the state a party, it is likely that it will be reheard en banc. This also means that the decision is no longer precedential and it won't factor into a circuit split for Drake. Then it will be likely that Drake will be denied Certiorari. There is a small chance that it could be granted but that is a small chance. 

[Spartiati 63]

Maybe. Any one judge on the 9th circuit can call for an en banc hearing. If that happens, they will hold a vote and that vote will determine if they rehear it en banc.

 

Unlike other courts, there are just so many judges in the 9th circuit that the en banc hearing is decided by a panel of 10 judges (10 or 11, I can't remember) instead of the entire court. 

 

It is extremely common for the 9th to rehear cases en banc. 

 

But they may very well decide not to.

 

Here's the thing, if they decide to make the state a party, it is likely that it will be reheard en banc. This also means that the decision is no longer precedential and it won't factor into a circuit split for Drake. Then it will be likely that Drake will be denied Certiorari. There is a small chance that it could be granted but that is a small chance. 

Ryan when is the deadline for the court to make a determination as to whether they giv standing and whether they will do en banc?  Is there a line in the sand so to speak?

[ryan_j 0]

Ryan when is the deadline for the court to make a determination as to whether they giv standing and whether they will do en banc?  Is there a line in the sand so to speak?

 

I don't think there is one but it is likely that they will do it by the 7th. 

[raz-0 1,259]

I don't think there is one but it is likely that they will do it by the 7th. 

 

There is one. It is 3-6-14. That is simultaneously the last day for the 9th circuit judges to call for a vote, and the date they are required to issue a mandate to the district court to issue the binding order on the county. So if we hear no news on 3-6, on 3-7 we should be done with the issue. If by 3-6 the court holds an en banc vote, we have until that comes back to know if there is a round two. I have no idea if they can do this on 3-6 and not conclude the vote until a later date. 

[ryan_j 0]

There is one. It is 3-6-14. That is simultaneously the last day for the 9th circuit judges to call for a vote, and the date they are required to issue a mandate to the district court to issue the binding order on the county. So if we hear no news on 3-6, on 3-7 we should be done with the issue. If by 3-6 the court holds an en banc vote, we have until that comes back to know if there is a round two. I have no idea if they can do this on 3-6 and not conclude the vote until a later date. 

 

Not true anymore. The last order extended the deadline and stayed the mandate.

 

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Peruta-v.-County-of-San-Diego_Order-re-Brady-Campaign-to-Prevent-Gun-Violences-Motion-to-Extend-Time-to-File-Petition-for-Rehearing.pdf

[springfieldxds 0]

Not true anymore. The last order extended the deadline and stayed the mandate.

 

Why would the judges grant this? Is there a better chance that a judge will call en banc after 3-6, to me if its not called for by then than its very unlikely to be called

 

And what standing does the Brady campaign even have to ask the court for this

 

I'm starting to get lost

 

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Peruta-v.-County-of-San-Diego_Order-re-Brady-Campaign-to-Prevent-Gun-Violences-Motion-to-Extend-Time-to-File-Petition-for-Rehearing.pdf

[raz-0 1,259]

Not true anymore. The last order extended the deadline and stayed the mandate.

 

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Peruta-v.-County-of-San-Diego_Order-re-Brady-Campaign-to-Prevent-Gun-Violences-Motion-to-Extend-Time-to-File-Petition-for-Rehearing.pdf

That is confusing. So they extended the period to request en banc to the due date that already existed to request an en banc rehearing?

 

Even so, I don't see how that extends the deadline. Near as I can tell, it just means these requests weren't dead on the 27th? Anyone have a good explantation of the wrangling?

[galapoola 102]

Read that if an appeal ruling is out there, in uncharted territory, then en banc is warranted. If the appeal is heavy on case law, like this one was, then generally the full court won't here it. Why should they unless case law was widely misapplied? Then again it's the CA9

[ryan_j 0]

Another ruling today. Richards v Prieto. In our favor. 

[Vlad G 345]

Another ruling today. Richards v Prieto. In our favor. 

 

This is actually excellent news. This is a second pro-carry decision from the 9th, and I very much doubt they would have released this if they planned to take the other case enbanc.

[ryan_j 0]

Last one to drop will be Baker in Hawai'i. That one will be completely out of reach for Kamala Harris. 

[maintenanceguy 510]

Another ruling today. Richards v Prieto. In our favor. 

link?  I'm searching but  can't find today's ruling?

[CMJeepster 2,778]

http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php/topic/67071-richards-v-prieto-california-yolo-county-right-to-carry-case-win/

[JoeInOcean 0]

Fear and Loathing in CA: Noticed on CalGuns... no Brief in Opposition has been filed, nor solicitor generals opinion requested... As stated by them this is usually the kiss of death for cert petitions... your thoughts?

[ryan_j 0]

Fear and Loathing in CA: Noticed on CalGuns... no Brief in Opposition has been filed, nor solicitor generals opinion requested... As stated by them this is usually the kiss of death for cert petitions... your thoughts?

 

Who said that? I think I know who, but I am curious to see if you saw the same thing I did.

 

Also, the BIO is coming. No good attorney ever files one early. 

[raz-0 1,259]

Fear and Loathing in CA: Noticed on CalGuns... no Brief in Opposition has been filed, nor solicitor generals opinion requested... As stated by them this is usually the kiss of death for cert petitions... your thoughts?

 

Link to said commentary, because your short hand isn't doing anything good for me. 

[ryan_j 0]

As I said, BIO is coming. The AG is working on it. It may be a little tough now with Peruta and Richards out of the 9th, as well as Illinois issuing its first CCW permits and no blood river as predicted by Rahm and McCarthy. 

[springfieldxds 0]

Any word yet on any of the judges calling for en banc

[ryan_j 0]

Any word yet on any of the judges calling for en banc

 

None.

 

Latest is that the court is requesting from the parties in the suit a response to KH and the Brady Bunch requests to intervene. 6000 words due within 21 days of the 5th...

[n4p226r 105]

so where will the files be posted once they are submitted?  i can never find this stuff online.   is this a good place to look?http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/drake-v-jerejian/  

[chris327 30]

yea i assume they will be up there. but they have all today from my understanding so wait until 4 pm or so i would think before it is submitted.