Will Peruta v. San Diego have any bearing in New Jersey

[Templar 0]

I hope this is the right place to post.The case reminds me of NJ justifiable need.

[RobertJames 14]

Lots of discussion of Peruta here.

[Templar 0]

Thanks I will check it out asap

[Barms 98]

Pretty big NYTIMES story here about CA gun permits.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/27/us/politics/in-california-a-fevered-rush-for-gun-permits.html?_r=0

[HBecwithFn7 296]

I hope this is the right place to post.The case reminds me of NJ justifiable need.

 

It may have some bearing in NJ in that it is part of the "splt" in the circuits ( "Drake" 3rd NJ vs, "Peruta" 9th CA) and, thus, what might facilitate SCOTUS granting cert.   We can only hope.

[Spartiati 63]

Pretty big NYTIMES story here about CA gun permits.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/27/us/politics/in-california-a-fevered-rush-for-gun-permits.html?_r=0

Seems to me that story is full of errors. The AG has no standing so she can't appeal anything to SCOTUS. Only thing she did was request enbanc, but to my knowledge this has not been granted, did I miss something?

 

Gotta love the same old BS lines aswell i.e. more CCW holders will mean shootouts everywhere...

[ryan_j 0]

The Peruta case and decision is only binding on the 9th circuit. However other courts may refer to the decision when writing their own opinions. The bigger thing is that it deepened the split in the circuit courts which theoretically now makes Peruta or another case like it more interesting to the Supreme Court to take up. Coincidentally, our case, Drake v Jerejian is almost exactly like Peruta.

[springfieldxds 0]

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2014/05/14/10-56971%20Response%20to%20Order.pdf

 

has anyone seen this update on Peruta, good news for us 

[springfieldxds 0]

ryan maybe you can better explain this to me, why would Gura want the Peruta case be made moot?

 

Update May 1, 2014 - It seems that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals was not amused by San Diego Sheriff Gore’s failure to file a response.  Today the courtordered him to:

“Appellee William D. Gore is ordered to notify this Court in writing within fourteen days of the date of this order of his position on the pending motions to intervene or that he takes no position.  Appellee William D. Gore is further ordered to respond within fourteen days of the date of this order to the suggestion that this case is moot. See Opp’n to Pet. for Reh’g En Banc 16, Richards v. Prieto, No. 11-16255 (“Even were Peruta vacated tomorrow, neither this Court nor the state could do anything to keep Gore from printing permits to all otherwise-qualified comers. The Peruta dispute is moot.”). He shall explain any change in his policy that could affect this Court’s jurisdiction over this case.”

So much for the perceived mutual admiration society between SAF and the NRA.  When I read Alan Gura’s opposition to the petition for a rehearing in Richards the quote from above stuck out like a sore thumb.  The SAF, having failed to obtain a published, binding precedent in its case tried to torpedo the NRA case by suggesting to the court that they render the Peruta decision moot.

If the court renders the Peruta decision moot, vacates its decision and depublishes it then it prohibits the Peruta decision from being cited in any future case.

[ryan_j 0]

It's hard to say what will happen but no one objects to AG Harris intervening. This doesn't mean that she will get to intervene. It is likely that she will get it. As for the en banc rehearing, changes are good for a rehearing. We don't want that. Hey, you never know.

 

Peruta being moot would enable Gura to take Richards to SCOTUS. It is clearly not moot as the sheriff is not issuing permits yet. I would say we will find out within a few months if Peruta stands.

[n4p226r 105]

so if she can intervene, but there is no en banc granted, she can file appeal to the supreme court?  but she would be fighting for it to be overturned.  

 

 

here is the bigger question.  assuming this makes it to the supreme court.  they decide that "self defense" is valid reason to ask for a permit.  then do we have to sue nj again and go through the process again hoping the first judge would see the writing on the wall this time and just start approving?

 

what does moot mean?  and why would gura go to the SCOTUS if he already won.  

[ryan_j 0]

Yes she can petition for a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court. She could do it now in fact.

 

We may have to sue NJ again but it should be easy to win. Or we may not, just depends on whether they want to play ball.

 

Moot means that there is no more issue to be challenged with the case. For example if NJ passed a law saying CCW is shall issue, a case like pantano would be moot.

[mikelets456 78]

I hope this is the right place to post.The case reminds me of NJ justifiable need.

 

This is a good little read on what you're talking about:

 

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/05/14/Second-Amendment-Drama-at-the-Supreme-Court-and-2016-Election

[ryan_j 0]

This is a good little read on what you're talking about:

 

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/05/14/Second-Amendment-Drama-at-the-Supreme-Court-and-2016-Election

 

I would take that with a grain of salt. Klukowski makes some very wrong assumptions.