Richards v Prieto - California - Yolo County - Right to carry case, WIN!

[ryan_j 0]

Hot off the press, the 9th circuit rules in favor of concealed carry, citing the Peruta decision. 

Richards v prieto.pdf

[Bully 749]

Wow. Cool.

 

C

[Mr.Stu 1,922]

I'm thinking the timing of this suggests that they are unlikely grant the AG's request in Peruta. What's your opinion?

[njpilot 671]

Sweet!

[Midwest 28]

Excellent News! But what does it mean "Not for Publication"? I need to pass this info on to other pro-gun sites.

[aguilar64 9]

I think they are going back to court 3/5/2014 based on their lost back on 12/6/2012

 

REVERSED and REMANDED.

 

When a case is decided by a trial court, the losing party may appeal the case to an appellate court. If the appellate court finds that the trial court made a mistake, as a matter of law, then the judgment may be reversed meaning that the court is invalidating the trial court's decision. It is then remanded, meaning sent back to the trial court, so that a judgment in the losing party's favor will be recorded.

[Bugsy732 1]

nice.. now if we can only get this kind of progress in Jersey

[ryan_j 0]

I'm thinking the timing of this suggests that they are unlikely grant the AG's request in Peruta. What's your opinion?

 

I think so too. 

 

Why put out an order you'll have to rescind in a few days.

 

Next shoe to drop is Baker in Hawai'i. Same panel, same circuit, orals heard the same day. 

[wooly bugger 1]

Edited...

 

Does this mean that the AG now has to appeal two separate cases to go en banc? I didn't realize they were hearing separate CCW cases. Was this heard by the same panel of judges for Peruta or different?

[ryan_j 0]

nice.. now if we can only get this kind of progress in Jersey

 

This is really good news for us. 

[ryan_j 0]

I don't understand how this is different than what we already knew for the past couple of weeks. There's still the chance of an en banc hearing, right?

 

This is a different county. 

[wooly bugger 1]

Edited...

 

Does this mean that the AG now has to appeal two separate cases to go en banc? I didn't realize they were hearing separate CCW cases. Was this heard by the same panel of judges for Peruta or different?

I just found the answer to my own question, which is that this case was heard by the same panel of judges in Peruta. I think we got incredibly lucky. I still don't know what this does to the probability of an en banc hearing, but I'll be watching closely.

[SJG 253]

Not approved for publication means that case does not get published in the law books and is not prescedential and is not usually cited as primary authority on a legal question. It really does not add any fuel to the pro 2A fire.

[Midwest 28]

Not approved for publication means that case does not get published in the law books and is not prescedential and is not usually cited as primary authority on a legal question. It really does not add any fuel to the pro 2A fire.

OK Thanks

[Spartiati 63]

Not approved for publication means that case does not get published in the law books and is not prescedential and is not usually cited as primary authority on a legal question. It really does not add any fuel to the pro 2A fire.

Is this likely because of the other case being more significant and thus setting the precedence?

[ryan_j 0]

Not approved for publication means that case does not get published in the law books and is not prescedential and is not usually cited as primary authority on a legal question. It really does not add any fuel to the pro 2A fire.

 

It really doesn't, but to me it signals that the judge thinks that Peruta will stand. 

[raz-0 1,259]

I'm thinking the timing of this suggests that they are unlikely grant the AG's request in Peruta. What's your opinion?

 

I've held that opinion since the AG submitted it. When the court urges you to be in on the lawsuit multiple times and you tell them to go scratch, they usually don't want to hear from you again. 

[raz-0 1,259]

Edited...

 

Does this mean that the AG now has to appeal two separate cases to go en banc? I didn't realize they were hearing separate CCW cases. Was this heard by the same panel of judges for Peruta or different?

 

Same.

[raz-0 1,259]

Is this likely because of the other case being more significant and thus setting the precedence?

 

It's essentially the same case in terms of the legal question it presents. IMO it means that the court regard peruta as their current opinion and the appropriate vehicle for any dissent or challenge to that opinion. I don't think the AG is going to get to say "no you need to listen to me now that I ignored you!!" and have the court give a crap. What is going to have to happen is a member of the court eligible to call for an en banc trial will have to either stand up and claim the legal reasoning in the case is fundamentally flawed, or stand up and play politics from the bench despite the reasoning being legally sound. IMO it was also the judges basically double dog daring those that can to get any politics playing over with ASAP, that the extension to the en banc window of opportunity was to appear equitable and fair minded so they couldn't be accused of railroading something that the court didn't actually support through, and we are now in the phase of waiting for someone to jump. 

 

I'll also put some outside money on the court being right pissed with the AG's behavior, and all this may be the equivalent to them basically saying "you hear that silence? That's the sound of go F yourself. Remember that the next time you decide you don't want to answer our invitation." Or I might be reading too much between the lines. 

[ryan_j 0]

Actually Richards also targeted "Good Moral Character" in addition  to "good cause."

[ryan_j 0]

The Sheriff has petitioned for en banc review. We should find out in about 5 weeks whether it was voted to be reheard en banc. 

[springfieldxds 0]

The Sheriff has petitioned for en banc review. We should find out in about 5 weeks whether it was voted to be reheard en banc. 

 

hopefully the supreme court will grant drake a hearing before they decide to hear en banc 

[oneshot 45]

So does mean  the SHTF for the anti2 crowd and they are now scrambling to get this reversed ? If it stands what could it do for us in NJ? I would think a ruling in our favor on the other coast should have, could have far reaching affects for all the anti states or may issue/justifiable need states.

[raz-0 1,259]

So does mean  the SHTF for the anti2 crowd and they are now scrambling to get this reversed ? If it stands what could it do for us in NJ? I would think a ruling in our favor on the other coast should have, could have far reaching affects for all the anti states or may issue/justifiable need states.

 

The anti crowd would like this heard en banc and reversed as that would eliminate a clear circuit split under conditions where one is likely to crop up (i.e. the remaining circuits are unlikely to generate any opinion).  From tehir perspective that would reduce the odds of SCOTUS hearing any carry case, which is best form their point of view. 

 

If it stands, it does nothing for us other than increasing the odds the drake is heard, and if not, AND the state of California appeals to SCOTUS, we could benefit from SCOTUS upholding Peruta. 

[ryan_j 0]

The other thing is that the clock is ticking. The Heller five aren't getting any younger, and who knows who will be elected in 2016. If Hillary or another Democrat is elected, it will be full wrecking ball mode on the Constitution via the US Supreme Court. 

[oneshot 45]

The other thing is that the clock is ticking. The Heller five aren't getting any younger, and who knows who will be elected in 2016. If Hillary or another Democrat is elected, it will be full wrecking ball mode on the Constitution via the US Supreme Court. 

At which time it will be the full wrecking ball of patriots standing their ground . It took 3% in the first revolution. it may take more the next time but  I would

 bet my last breath that freedom would reign .  Although most would fold like a house of cards i think there would be enough "men" to  change  the tide of

tyranny .

[maintenanceguy 510]

At which time it will be the full wrecking ball of patriots standing their ground . It took 3% in the first revolution. it may take more the next time but  I would

 bet my last breath that freedom would reign .  Although most would fold like a house of cards i think there would be enough "men" to  change  the tide of

tyranny .

 

I hope you're right but we have a slow, creeping tyranny.   It's easy to miss.   It also is always happening in some other state or some other city and doesn't really effect us so we let it continue.

[ryan_j 0]

I hope you're right but we have a slow, creeping tyranny. It's easy to miss. It also is always happening in some other state or some other city and doesn't really effect us so we let it continue.

Yes, it's a "soft" tyranny and it's already happening.