Jump to content
Princetonian58

What's Up with Peruta?

Recommended Posts

Anyone know what is going on in the Ninth Circuit in this case? Last I heard there were motions by CA and gun grabber groups to intervene and/or rehear the case en banc. That was almost 4 months ago.

 

What's the status of CCW permits in CA now? Are they being issued or is some indefinite stay in place until the motions are decided? Ryan or Scott B. any insight?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still waiting for the decision on the motion to intervene for Kamala and the Bradys. Then the 9th get to decide whether to hear it en banc, which is a 90 day window. 

 

Meanwhile cases are citing it as good law. Palmer (DC carry), Silvester (10 day waiting period) come to mind.

 

I suppose this could be part of a strategy to cement it as good case law so it's harder to overturn. It's already a well written decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I posted that in GFH radio on FB this morning. :D

 

It's not totally over yet but the writing is on the wall.

 

The only avenues left for them now are for a judge on the 9th to ask for a rehearing en banc (sua sponte) or for another case to be appealed to SCOTUS. And this will pretty much result in a cert grant.

 

Don't start carrying in NJ yet though. But we are close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I posted that in GFH radio on FB this morning. :D

 

It's not totally over yet but the writing is on the wall.

 

The only avenues left for them now are for a judge on the 9th to ask for a rehearing en banc (sua sponte) or for another case to be appealed to SCOTUS. And this will pretty much result in a cert grant.

 

Don't start carrying in NJ yet though. But we are close.

 

:laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ryan -- can you expound on the reasons for your optimism for S Ct cert grant?  Drake was a kick to the gut and left me with the view that the S Ct just doesn't want to deal with this issue or doesn't have the votes for another pro-2A decision.  I'm finding it awfully hard to be optimistic.  Why do you think Peruta will result in a cert grant where Drake didn't?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ryan -- can you expound on the reasons for your optimism for S Ct cert grant?  Drake was a kick to the gut and left me with the view that the S Ct just doesn't want to deal with this issue or doesn't have the votes for another pro-2A decision.  I'm finding it awfully hard to be optimistic.  Why do you think Peruta will result in a cert grant where Drake didn't?

 

Because for Drake there was not circuit court conflict, Peruta was then in a weired state at the time.  Now there is an actual hard 180 degree different conflict between circuit courts. Basically the SC can't really stand back and say the Constitution means one thing in one part of the the country and another in they other chunk of the country.  

 

Of course, before everyone orders party supplies, keep in mind that may be MANY years before this makes it to SC again, California could choose not to escalated in which case we need a new case in NJ/NY/etc to be pushed up. And, they can still rule against it even if they take it. 

 

But it is a necessary step. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ryan -- can you expound on the reasons for your optimism for S Ct cert grant?  Drake was a kick to the gut and left me with the view that the S Ct just doesn't want to deal with this issue or doesn't have the votes for another pro-2A decision.  I'm finding it awfully hard to be optimistic.  Why do you think Peruta will result in a cert grant where Drake didn't?

 

 

My logic, which may count for jack in the real world, but it's my best interpretation of reading between the lines on reasoning we simply have not had explained. 

 

Much like heller has in it language saying essentially don't expect SCOTUS support for opening up the machine gun roster, Drake may have been denied to protect some line SCOTUS won't endorse crossing. PErmitting felons to buy guns may be it, or shall isssue concelaed carry may be it, constitutionally protected open carry may be it, or something else. We don't know. Drake was more or less brought to the court in a manner where at the very least it was a foot in the oor for the argument that the state possesses no regulatory authority on the 2nd beyond the sale and purchase of firearms. That the permitting requirements in NJ, like the permitting requirements in MD, were an unconsitutional restriction on the right rather than making a solid argument that a lawful regulatory system was being used to systematically, and unconstitutionally, abridge the rights of the  people. Clumsy as it may have been, the state came to the table saying 1) we can do whatever we want because we believe it is in the best interest of the people, and 2) we approve 95% of applicants.. here's the numbers. SCOTUS may have felt that as argued, it put things like denying elons guns and being able to ban open carry at risk. We jsut don't know. Also, Gura is a bit on the bold and brash side, and tends to reach really far in his court cases. Without someone to temper his approach, he loses a lot more often than you may think. At the circuit and scotus level, he's often on the winning team, but that's not the same as carrying the game so to speak. 

 

Peruta is as far as I can tell a cleaner case. Our side is challenging only a portion of the regulatory structure, and their side is openly admitting they use it as a means of preventing law abiding citizens from carrying. 

 

Peruta can't be appealed to SCOTUS though. We need a new case. The only people who have standing based on this ruling refused to appeal shortyly after the decision dropped. Officially, nobody is arguing with it.  In that regard though, we have IIRC at least 3 Hawaii cases, and one county in CA where the sherif is saying F-U to everyone and saying he doesn't care what the court says. So... opportunity abounds. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The San Francisco appeals court’s ruling is squarely at odds with those by appeals courts in New York, Philadelphia and Richmond, Virginia, that have upheld discretionary permitting. By deepening a split among regional appeals courts, a ruling in favor of Peruta increases the likelihood that the high court will take up the issue to resolve the difference of opinion."

 

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-11-12/california-loses-bid-to-revisit-ruling-striking-gun-rules

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At EOD, I don't think it matters one lick what happens at SCOTUS or otherwise.   Unless we're able to do a little "Housecleaning..."  (and SenateCleaning :D ) in Trenton,  it will never come to fruition here in the PRNJ. They *will* find ways around it. NJ is too "blue" a State.... on *several* levels.... :shok:

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get how the article says it only deals with San diego county and not the entire circuit

I think they are referring to a statement by the court that they are not ruling on the statutes but directly on how that implementation in San Diego has violated 2A rights. I do not think that means it only applies to San Diego, and I've never heard anybody speculate such a thing. I think the author made a mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

DC....   yeah great, they now have what we have, but seems worse.....

 

Illinois was No Issue..... they had solid ground to stand on to fight....

 

Ca....   they will find a way around it.....

 

We will never get rid of "justifiable need"

IL and DC were no issue, and IL went full shall issue.

 

DC is not done. The court said they would review the revised rules. I don't think they are going to stand for this. I think DC will end up with Shall Issue in short order unless they get some sort of appeal.

 

As for Peruta, they need an appeal or one of the other cases to explode to save them. Otherwise they are going Shall Issue as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right??? Isn't Hawaii also within the 9th? Shouldn't their form of "good cause/Justifiable need" also now be null and void as well?

basically what the court is saying, is that they didnt rule on the constitutionality of "good cause",  the court is merely saying that self defense must be considered "good cause" buy all the countys 

 

so "good cause" stays law, but self defense is now considered a "good cause 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

basically what the court is saying is they are not saying "good cause" is unconstitutional the court is merely saying that self defense must be considered "good cause" buy all the countys

 

so "good cause" stays law, but self defense is now consider a "good cause

Gotcha, tks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

basically what the court is saying, is that they didnt rule on the constitutionality of "good cause",  the court is merely saying that self defense must be considered "good cause" buy all the countys 

 

so "good cause" stays law, but self defense is now considered a "good cause 

"Zombies" is always good cause

 

zombies.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the syllabus accompanying the opinion and order:

 

"The panel denied motions to intervene, which were filed

after the panel’s opinion and judgment holding that a

responsible, law-abiding citizen has a right under the Second

Amendment to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.

The State of California and the Brady Campaign to

Prevent Gun Violence moved to intervene under Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 24 after San Diego Sheriff William D.

Gore declined to file a petition for rehearing en banc. The

California Police Chiefs’ Association and the California

Peace Officers’ Association, amici in this case, submitted a

petition for rehearing en banc. Noting that amici cannot file

petitions for rehearing en banc, the panel construed the

petition as a motion to intervene."

 

As I understand the procedural posture of the case now, only the San Diego Sheriff (Gore) has standing to file a petition for certiorari with SCOTUS in this case.  However, he may be disinclined to do so since he did not seek a rehearing en banc.  On the other hand, he did submit a letter to the court asking it to allow the State of California to intervene for that purpose.  Now that the State was handed a big FU by the majority, a petition for cert. may be coming unless he is out of time.  According to Peruta's brief opposing intervention, Gore represented he would no longer require any reason beyond general self defense once the panel decision became final.

 

Seems to me that if Peruta is now final in the 9th Circuit, then it will take another test case from the PRNJ, PRNY or PRMD to go up and seek SCOTUS review.  Clearly there is now a split among the circuit courts of appeal but it still takes a specific case to request certiorari.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We could have concealed carry permits issued immediately if our Republican Gov would grow a pair and have AG define it appropriately. We could also have stupid, unreasonable NJ AWB scraped.

 

So much for NJ Republicans .

 

I could comment on this, but I don't want to get the thread moved to the "1st Amendment Lounge."    Just remember, CC was, in his younger days, the US Atty for Newark....

 

Just let that soak in... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right??? Isn't Hawaii also within the 9th? Shouldn't their form of "good cause/Justifiable need" also now be null and void as well?

Not automatically. But there are cases based on Peruta which ruled in favor of shall-issue. These cases were stayed pending Peruta. They now move forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...