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 .

He told me we needed legislation to do that.

 

Either we do or he's lying.

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.

There are two other cases at the circuit level in CA9 - Richards v Prieto and Baker v Kealoha. The former is Yolo County CA and the latter is Hawaii. Alan Gura and Alan Beck respectively are arguing those cases on behalf of plaintiffs.

 

Those cases were stayed pending the outcome of Peruta. Peruta is one step closer to being final, and when it is (very soon we hope) CA9 will move on those cases.

 

Richards has a pending en banc petition. It could be reheard en banc but that is unlikely it seems. Next stop after that is SCOTUS.

 

With a hard split and the Government appealing, chances of a cert grant are pretty high.

 

 

He told me we needed legislation to do that.

 

Either we do or he's lying.

Of course he would say that. It would be easy for him to not take credit for the change in ccw issuance then. Similar to his "put the gay marriage question on the ballet". He can then wash his hands of making a decision that would offend some, or cause controversy. He pretends to have "balls" and talks tough, but when push comes to shove the guy has a vagina between his legs when it comes to touchy issues.

 

He told me we needed legislation to do that.

 

Either we do or he's lying.

Says lot about a man's perception of people who elected him. He (his AG) could also have used recent single PA mom case and make a reciprocity agreement with other states. That would have put a nail in the anti coffin. Further says about his stand on the 2A issue.

It says on my permit "reason: self defense" that should be all that you need.

"Zombies" is always good cause

 

Is that what a tax stamp to build an SBR looks like? Always wondered what that piece of paper looks like. Hopefully I get to see one of those with my name on it one day. Maybe Santa Clause or the tooth fairy could drop one off to me one day.

it's pretty simple looking isn't it?   you should see what the e-file tax stamps look like

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 .

 

The issue remains that a Superior Court Judge still needs to approve (as I recall).  The AG is the state's lawyer, and he could change the rules, I agree, and then it would be on each Judge to approve/deny and then we would have a patchwork of counties ala NY State where some would issue and some would not depending on the individual proclivities of each Judge.

The issue remains that a Superior Court Judge still needs to approve (as I recall).  The AG is the state's lawyer, and he could change the rules, I agree, and then it would be on each Judge to approve/deny and then we would have a patchwork of counties ala NY State where some would issue and some would not depending on the individual proclivities of each Judge.

One step at a time. Republicans could look at this as a tangled web of mess and use the opportunity to blame others (which is what our dear leader is doing) or do whats in their power (get the justifiable need clarified properly).  We already have patch work at FPID and P2P where each town takes their own sweet time. But thats better than denials ACROSS the state.

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 ) 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....

Illinois was dead set against CCW and had to be taken down kicking and screaming.. Same thing with DC after Heller... They tried to play games to skirt the law... The hoops in Chicago are a pain in the ass but at EOD you can CCW.

 

NJ will be the same... The list of places you can not carry and such will be a mile long but if SCOTUS rules "shall Issue" NJ will fall in line kicking and screaming as well..

 

Illinois was dead set against CCW and had to be taken down kicking and screaming.. Same thing with DC after Heller... They tried to play games to skirt the law... The hoops in Chicago are a pain in the ass but at EOD you can CCW.

 

NJ will be the same... The list of places you can not carry and such will be a mile long but if SCOTUS rules "shall Issue" NJ will fall in line kicking and screaming as well..

 

Illinois was dead set against CCW and had to be taken down kicking and screaming.. Same thing with DC after Heller... They tried to play games to skirt the law... The hoops in Chicago are a pain in the ass but at EOD you can CCW.

 

NJ will be the same... The list of places you can not carry and such will be a mile long but if SCOTUS rules "shall Issue" NJ will fall in line kicking and screaming as well..

 

Be careful what you wish for, we have always had dissenting majority votes on these issues instead of the six to three majority.  There is a argument that the SCOTUS has failed to review any new cases because the cases could be overturned (SCOTUS is weird like that).  I'd like to see a more radical approach, a constitutional convention.  The amendment is proposed by two-thirds of the states and then the ball gets rolling from there.  Currently non of the twenty seven amendments have been proposed that way but this could be a whole new ball game for states to balance out federal laws uniformly across the country.

 

Be careful what you wish for, we have always had dissenting majority votes on these issues instead of the six to three majority.  There is a argument that the SCOTUS has failed to review any new cases because the cases could be overturned (SCOTUS is weird like that).  I'd like to see a more radical approach, a constitutional convention.  The amendment is proposed by two-thirds of the states and then the ball gets rolling from there.  Currently non of the twenty seven amendments have been proposed that way but this could be a whole new ball game for states to balance out federal laws uniformly across the country.

 

That's not a Constitutional Convention. It's a Convention of The States for Amendments.

" “Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court [or ours] to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct. Nor may we relegate the bearing of arms to a ‘second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantee that we have help to be incorporated into the Due Process Clause,” according to the Ninth Circuit judges rule in the McDonald case."

 

http://www.examiner.com/article/9th-circuit-procedural-triumph-a-win-for-2nd-amendment-san-diego

" The Ninth Circuit went on to say, “The district court erred in denying the applicant’s motion summary judgment on the Second Amendment claim because San Diego County’s ‘good cause’ permitting impermissibly infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in a lawful self-defense. The case is reversed and remanded.” "

"Furthermore Peruta said, the assumption by the county that they are simply limiting the lethality of violent crimes is absurd, “do they really think a legal firearm owner will head down and rob 7-11 after he/she passes through a costly and lengthy background check to secure their safety?” "

"The plaintiffs in the Peruta case contended that the Sheriff’s Department found favor with prominent wealthy elite residents as well as those who belong to the Honorary Deputy Sheriff’s Association, an organization that funds many praiseworthy projects and equipment purchases for the Sheriff Department which may not otherwise be available due to current budget constraints."

"While the county contends it grants the majority of the CCW applications it receives, what it didn’t tell the court is the Sheriff’s office initially and informally tells possible applicants, after a few minutes of office review, that they don’t qualify and if they continue forward they will lose any application funds paid and have a negative record on their Department of Justice file.

 

“The evidence obtained in the Federal Lawsuit clearly shows the San Diego County Sheriff’s Dept. has an established policy of separating its residents into two distinct groups, those that can and those that cannot carry firearms for self defense,” Peruta explained. "

Substitue "San Diego" with "New Jersey" and re-read my quotes.

" “Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem.

Drawing chalk lines around bodies is "personal security?"

 

Every court in the nation that has commented has ruled police do not protect citizens from crime. But it's a lot simpler to look at their batting average. I guess the 9th didn't get the memo from the US Supreme Court.

Wow....

 

All these well thought out arguments and rationales.

 

Yet, theres only one slight problem.

 

NJ is not part of America and does not take their orders from SCOTUS and is somehow diplomatically immuned to the US Government. At least folks in NJ can say they've lived in a foriegn country?

 

 

Wow

"California overreached on concealed carry"  http://www.latimes.com/opinion/readersreact/la-le-1120-thursday-california-gun-law-20141120-story.html

After the California Attorney General and the Brady Campaign sought reconsideration or alternatively, an en banc ruling on the order denying them leave to intervene, the Ninth CIrcuit issued an order stating that a single judge of the circuit has requested a vote of the court on whether the appeal should be reheard en banc.  Effectively, one judge, presumably the dissenter, circumvented the order denying intervention by this maneuver and has forced an en banc vote.  The existing parties are to file simultaneous briefs within 21 days addressing whether the case should be heard en banc; and leave was granted for amici (Brady etc.) to file briefs on that issue as well.  Not sure how long it will take for the en banc vote to take place and made public.

After the California Attorney General and the Brady Campaign sought reconsideration or alternatively, an en banc ruling on the order denying them leave to intervene, the Ninth CIrcuit issued an order stating that a single judge of the circuit has requested a vote of the court on whether the appeal should be reheard en banc.  Effectively, one judge, presumably the dissenter, circumvented the order denying intervention by this maneuver and has forced an en banc vote.  The existing parties are to file simultaneous briefs within 21 days addressing whether the case should be heard en banc; and leave was granted for amici (Brady etc.) to file briefs on that issue as well.  Not sure how long it will take for the en banc vote to take place and made public.

 

Source please?

Source please?

 

Ninth Circuit's website.  Order reads:

 

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, THOMAS, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

A judge of this Court having made a sua sponte call for a vote on whether

this case should be reheard en banc, the parties shall file, within 21 days from the

date of this order, simultaneous briefs setting forth their respective positions on

whether this case should be reheard en banc. See G.O. 5.4©(3). Amici curiae

wishing to file briefs regarding whether this case should be reheard en banc may

also do so within 21 days from the date of this order.

The one judge asking for the en banc hearing sounds bad to me.

 

Any judge that agreed with the "carry is a right" ruling would have let the ruling stand - so this one judge is clearly against the ruling.

 

Any judge that thought the other judges would just vote against en banc hearing would also just let the ruling stand - so this one judge believes he has support.

 

Any judge that thought he would ultimately loose an en banc hearing would also just let the ruling stand - so this one judge believes the ruling will be overturned.

 

This judge knows his fellow judges better than I do so I have to assume he's right and the ruling will be overturned.    Then we have 3 circuit courts that have ruled that there is no individual right to carry.

Remember there was a judge against it, the decision was 2-1. He/she could just be pissed and trying to delay things. I could be wrong but if the 9th wanted to hear enbanc they would have used previous opportunities to do so.

It appears that they decided to hear this en banc after all.  

 

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/news/blog/breaking-ninth-circuit-orders-en-banc-rehearing-in-peruta-v-san-diego-ccw-lawsuit/

Well, that certainly doesn't help any. I guess we start over and slog through this one just like the last one.

 

The ruling for the last one would have really empowered USSC to see things our way.

Hard to be optimistic about the Ninth Circuit's mulligan.  One would have to believe that they think they have enough votes to overturn the original ruling.

Hard to be optimistic about the Ninth Circuit's mulligan.  One would have to believe that they think they have enough votes to overturn the original ruling.

I think it's almost certain.

 

As of now, the original ruling is dead. Not to be considered by USSC if they look around for rulings from various districts AFAIK.