Calguns.net

Calguns.net (https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/index.php)
-   2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion (https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/forumdisplay.php?f=330)
-   -   Peruta v. County of San Diego (CCW) [Filed for cert to SCOTUS, 1/12/17] (https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=811282)

fizux 08-21-2013 12:13 AM

Peruta v. County of San Diego (CCW) [Filed for cert to SCOTUS, 1/12/17]
 
5 Attachment(s)
//
// Thread continues at http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...php?p=20192712
//
// June 5, 2017
//
// Librarian

If you are here to ask about the current status of Peruta you should read the sticky first.

Peruta v. County of San Diego [Sheriff William Gore]
Issue: 2A Right to Bear Arms Outside the Home

Current Status:
As of 6/16/2015 - En Banc rehearing held, decision pending.

3/26/2015 - En Banc rehearing ordered. (see file: 10-56971ebo.pdf)
3/7/2014 - Motions to Intervene & Amici pending, requesting rehearing En Banc; Parties to file response NLT 3/26/2014. Mandate stayed pending decision on motions.
3/6/2014 - Appearance of LCAV and Marin County Sheriff.
3/5/2014 - LCAV and Marin County Sheriff's Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief and Proposed Amicus Brief (attached).
3/5/2014 - Craig Konnoth's 46-5 motion is granted.
3/5/2014 - Order directing each party to respond to CA & Brady's Motions to Intervene and CPCA/CPOA's Petition for Rehearing En Banc (attached).
3/3/2014 - Craig Konnoth's motion for 46-5 exemption (attached). [CA's attorney used to work for 9CA, and is applying for an exception to allow him to represent CA.]
2/28/2014 - Appearance of State of California (as proposed intervenor).
2/13/2014 - 9CA Panel Opinion Declares May-Issue Unconstitutional.
Congratulations to NRA/CRPA, Michel & Associates, Paul Clement, and everybody who contributed to this case.

12/6/2013 - 28(j) letter [attached, pending RECAP update] (re: U.S. v. Chovan).
9/13/2013 - 28(j) letter (re: People v. Aguilar).
12/6/2012 - Oral Argument (Audio).
Various 28j / Supp. Auth. filed.


Trial Court: S.D. Cal.
Case No. 3:09-cv-02371
Docket: http://ia700406.us.archive.org/23/items/gov.uscourts.casd.308678/gov.uscourts.casd.308678.docket.html


Appellate Court: 9CA
Case No.: 10-56971
Docket: http://ia601703.us.archive.org/11/items/gov.uscourts.ca9.10-56971/gov.uscourts.ca9.10-56971.docket.html


Links:
CGF Wiki for this case: http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Pe...y_of_San_Diego
CGF Wiki Litigation page: http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Li...st_and_Present
Michel & Assoc. Case Tracker: http://michellawyers.com/guncasetrac...rutavsandiego/
9th Circuit Media Page regarding this case: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/..._id=0000000722
News (2/13/2014): CGF credits NRA for its outstanding work and important victory for the Second Amendment: https://www.calgunsfoundation.org/20...onstitutional/

woods 08-21-2013 12:43 AM

These cases feel like they will never end.thanks for the update.

Sent from my HTCEVOV4G using Tapatalk 4

rugershooter 08-21-2013 7:55 PM

Any expectations as to how long the 9th circuit will take for a ruling?
I've been out of the loop for a while; 22 hr work days don't leave much time for keeping track with these things...

sholling 08-21-2013 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drivedabizness (Post 12124510)
The attorney for the County is getting his arse handed to him. Why the delay? The proper result is obvious. They just don't want to issue the ruling.

The problem is that in most of the cases so far the government attornies could have just recited the text of Jabberwocky as their entire argument and the courts would still have handed them a victory. Most of the judges haven't given one wit about what Gura argues or what the constitution says or what the US Supreme Court said in Heller - most of the judges hearing 2nd Amendment cases have made a political decision that they don't want the general public to have guns and they sure as heck don't want us carrying guns.

fizux 02-13-2014 6:41 PM

bump for updates, including release of 9CA panel opinion.

Jimi Jah 02-14-2014 9:40 AM

Gore is fighting this decision. The SDSD has asked the 9th to issue a complete ruling. That may not go as desired. If it does, expect no changes as Gore will then request a SCOTUS decision. He is dead set against CCW's in SD county, period. Then it is delayed until the SCOTUS either take or pass on the case. If they pass and it is overruled by the complete 9th, case over, we lose.

Remember, the 9th is the most liberal appeals court in the USA with 25% of their decisions overruled, a court packed with Clinton and Obama appointees. Odds are no better than 50/50 for them to uphold the decision.

If the 9th upholds the case and the Supremes decide to rule, everything is on hold until that decision. That could take two years or so as they will not include it this year.

Expect about June 2015 for the decision, if it is coming at all.

Librarian 02-14-2014 11:11 AM

Just for fun, if one thinks a thread need moderating, report it to the moderators - there's the 'report post' button in every post header.

A few posts deleted. This thread was started as a case-progress thread; we have lots of discussion in the other open threads.

lear60man 02-14-2014 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimi Jah (Post 13439189)
Gore is fighting this decision. The SDSD has asked the 9th to issue a complete ruling. That may not go as desired. If it does, expect no changes as Gore will then request a SCOTUS decision. He is dead set against CCW's in SD county, period. Then it is delayed until the SCOTUS either take or pass on the case. If they pass and it is overruled by the complete 9th, case over, we lose.

Remember, the 9th is the most liberal appeals court in the USA with 25% of their decisions overruled, a court packed with Clinton and Obama appointees. Odds are no better than 50/50 for them to uphold the decision.

If the 9th upholds the case and the Supremes decide to rule, everything is on hold until that decision. That could take two years or so as they will not include it this year.Expect about June 2015 for the decision, if it is coming at all.

"


Thank you for the most cohesive explanation of what to expect. My question is what will happen if SD requests an En-Banc? Can the 9th sit on that request for years while we wait? We need a Calguns flow chart on where this decision could be going and an approximate time line. Make it a sticky.(Paging Librarian). The average Calgunner is having a difficult time sifting through the congratulatory posts to find 'what happens next.'

Unfortunately I see this victory as just one more wrung on the ladder to CCW in CA. And even if we win, how do we mandate compliance? I can see a reaction by SD where if you want a CCW you have to sue the county personally. 'Congratulations Mr. Pertula. Here is your CCW. it took you X years and Y dollars. Who else would like to sue us to get one?'

Could California rescind the unloaded open carry law to circumvent giving out CCW's? Or has that ship sailed?

But yea....a nice flow chart would be a great sticky for us folks who dont have a legal eye.

fizux 02-14-2014 1:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lear60man (Post 13439980)
"


Thank you for the most cohesive explanation of what to expect. My question is what will happen if SD requests an En-Banc? Can the 9th sit on that request for years while we wait? We need a Calguns flow chart on where this decision could be going and an approximate time line. Make it a sticky.(Paging Librarian). The average Calgunner is having a difficult time sifting through the congratulatory posts to find 'what happens next.'

Unfortunately I see this victory as just one more wrung on the ladder to CCW in CA. And even if we win, how do we mandate compliance? I can see a reaction by SD where if you want a CCW you have to sue the county personally. 'Congratulations Mr. Pertula. Here is your CCW. it took you X years and Y dollars. Who else would like to sue us to get one?'

Could California rescind the unloaded open carry law to circumvent giving out CCW's? Or has that ship sailed?

But yea....a nice flow chart would be a great sticky for us folks who dont have a legal eye.

A lot of people expect this to turn out just like Nordyke. There are plenty of resources on that case's history.

Time estimate: 2 weeks! 14 years.

Librarian 02-14-2014 1:58 PM

'What happens next' - guesses, of course - are in the sticky http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...8#post13432008

Could be 6 months or so before we know if it might go en banc.

Courts do not move in internet time.

It took until 1933 to move presidential inauguration from March to January, possible, I believe, because train service would get the new President there in winter. Courts are still kind of in the 50s ...

thayne 02-14-2014 2:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimi Jah (Post 13439189)
Gore is fighting this decision. The SDSD has asked the 9th to issue a complete ruling. That may not go as desired. If it does, expect no changes as Gore will then request a SCOTUS decision. He is dead set against CCW's in SD county, period. Then it is delayed until the SCOTUS either take or pass on the case. If they pass and it is overruled by the complete 9th, case over, we lose.

Remember, the 9th is the most liberal appeals court in the USA with 25% of their decisions overruled, a court packed with Clinton and Obama appointees. Odds are no better than 50/50 for them to uphold the decision.

If the 9th upholds the case and the Supremes decide to rule, everything is on hold until that decision. That could take two years or so as they will not include it this year.

Expect about June 2015 for the decision, if it is coming at all.

It wont take two years. SCOTUS wont take this case, they will take drake this year.

fizux 03-07-2014 9:18 AM

OP updated.

soul 04-17-2014 6:42 PM

Good analysis of Peruta case
 
http://www.law.com/sites/jamesching/...t-issuance-in/


Best part of conclusion -

"
California itself faces the negation of its system of gun control without any practical Legislative fix, as the opinion requires both the removal of the abolition of open carry and the elimination of good cause requirements for concealed carry.

"

Grakken 04-17-2014 6:49 PM

Can you post what it says without having to signup for whatever it is they want you to sign up for?

:)

Drivedabizness 04-17-2014 7:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by soul (Post 13900534)
http://www.law.com/sites/jamesching/...t-issuance-in/


Best part of conclusion -

"
California itself faces the negation of its system of gun control without any practical Legislative fix, as the opinion requires both the removal of the abolition of open carry and the elimination of good cause requirements for concealed carry.

"

Ummm - No. The ruling DID NOT say this.

Dirtbozz 04-17-2014 7:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grakken (Post 13900586)
Can you post what it says without having to signup for whatever it is they want you to sign up for?

:)

It seems you can read the article by scrolling and reading two or three lines at the top of the screen. A least it works for me.

Dirtbozz 04-17-2014 8:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grakken (Post 13900586)
Can you post what it says without having to signup for whatever it is they want you to sign up for?

:)

It seems you can read the article by scrolling and reading two or three lines at the top of the screen. A least it works for me.

soul 04-18-2014 6:37 AM

I have the PDF, the site is not allowing me to post beyond certain length.
Any other option?

fizux 04-18-2014 11:20 AM

I hit Ctrl+A (select all), then Ctrl+C (copy), opened notepad and pasted the text in notepad. The article will be a nice block of text in the middle, and you can ignore all of the other garbage.

fizux 04-18-2014 11:36 AM

Here is another "what if" musing about the Panel's strategery....

Could the Panel be waiting to see if Drake is granted cert before deciding on the motion to intervene? What if SCOTUS were to grant the Drake petition today, and announce it on Monday --- couldn't the Panel then stay Peruta sua sponte, and decide the motion to intervene after SCOTUS' opinion in Drake? Wouldn't that have the effect of preserving Peruta as good law in CA and HI for the next 6-9 months until SCOTUS lays down the law anyway?

In that period of time, some sheriffs may come to grips with the state of law and become more reasonable regarding their issuance policies. Since Peruta would still be good law, many sheriffs would realize the liability created by holding CCW apps for that long, so that scenario would provide some 2A benefit even before SCOTUS issues its decision.

Obviously, it won't help us (at least initially) in hard-core Jim Crow counties like SF and Marin, but the pressure will increase as more Californians traveling through their counties fall under vSI.

At a very minimum, it will reduce the "we didn't know it was coming" excuse when they don't have the staff or approved training curricula to handle the tens of thousands of apps per county that have accumulated since February in the "decide after Peruta" pile.

Untamed1972 04-18-2014 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fizux (Post 13905275)
Here is another "what if" musing about the Panel's strategery....

Could the Panel be waiting to see if Drake is granted cert before deciding on the motion to intervene? What if SCOTUS were to grant the Drake petition today, and announce it on Monday --- couldn't the Panel then stay Peruta sua sponte, and decide the motion to intervene after SCOTUS' opinion in Drake? Wouldn't that have the effect of preserving Peruta as good law in CA and HI for the next 6-9 months until SCOTUS lays down the law anyway?

In that period of time, some sheriffs may come to grips with the state of law and become more reasonable regarding their issuance policies. Since Peruta would still be good law, many sheriffs would realize the liability created by holding CCW apps for that long, so that scenario would provide some 2A benefit even before SCOTUS issues its decision.

Obviously, it won't help us (at least initially) in hard-core Jim Crow counties like SF and Marin, but the pressure will increase as more Californians traveling through their counties fall under vSI.

At a very minimum, it will reduce the "we didn't know it was coming" excuse when they don't have the staff or approved training curricula to handle the tens of thousands of apps per county that have accumulated since February in the "decide after Peruta" pile.

With Peruta currently being stayed......I don't think you can call it "good law" quite yet. Yes, some Sheriffs like OC are abiding by the decision anyway. But is not....he's just sitting on it for now. So until an order to comply is issued you can't call it "good law". An opinion was issued, but it's not being enforced yet.

caliberetta 04-18-2014 11:55 AM

Don't know if this has been posted, but the 9th Circuit Court has created a special page dedicated to the case:

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/..._id=0000000722

fizux 04-18-2014 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Untamed1972 (Post 13905381)
With Peruta currently being stayed......I don't think you can call it "good law" quite yet.

I'm just going with the legal definition. It hasn't been withdrawn (by grant of en banc) or overruled (by SCOTUS or 9CA en banc), so it remains controlling precedent. As of today, you would have a valid claim under 42 USC ยง 1983 (assuming all other criteria were satisfied) for willful deprivation of your civil rights; however, if the case is stayed pending SCOTUS' decision in Drake *after* the grant of an en banc petition, then you would not be able to rely upon Peruta as "good law." (note that is exactly what happened in Nordyke when McDonald was granted certiorari.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Untamed1972 (Post 13905381)
Yes, some Sheriffs like OC are abiding by the decision anyway.

Exactly my point. The longer this drags out while Peruta is still good law, the more sheriffs will cave (if not exactly shall-issue, at least some places will go from no-issue to when-monkeys-fly-out-of-my-butt, and from monkeys to may-issue).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Untamed1972 (Post 13905381)
But is not....he's just sitting on it for now. So until an order to comply is issued you can't call it "good law". An opinion was issued, but it's not being enforced yet.

A lot of changes are being made in San Diego. Maybe Sheriff Gore is not obligated to issue a permit to Mr. Peruta today, but a SD resident could still sue him tomorrow and cite to Peruta as binding legal precedent.

fizux 04-18-2014 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caliberetta (Post 13905400)
Don't know if this has been posted, but the 9th Circuit Court has created a special page dedicated to the case:

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/..._id=0000000722

Yup, its in the OP.

dantodd 04-18-2014 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fizux (Post 13905275)
Here is another "what if" musing about the Panel's strategery....

Could the Panel be waiting to see if Drake is granted cert before deciding on the motion to intervene? What if SCOTUS were to grant the Drake petition today, and announce it on Monday --- couldn't the Panel then stay Peruta sua sponte, and decide the motion to intervene after SCOTUS' opinion in Drake? Wouldn't that have the effect of preserving Peruta as good law in CA and HI for the next 6-9 months until SCOTUS lays down the law anyway?

Intervention status is a different type of question from the underlying merits of the case.

Certainly the panel could stop all motion on the case or even stay it pending Drake. This would presumably include the intervention motion.

I doubt that anything significant would change though. While Peruta is currently law I can't see any district issuing an order directing a sheriff to accept "self defense" for good cause while Drake is under review.

It would be much more interesting if the court granted her petition but denied en banc. If the full court didn't vote to take on the case Harris would have to appeal to SCOTUS. This would be interesting and telling. If they denied her request for a preliminary injunction (which would surely be her request) it would be a pretty strong signal of the ultimate outcome of Drake.

Of course, the court could GVR Drake on Monday. :D making all of this moot.

fizux 04-18-2014 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dantodd (Post 13905481)
Intervention status is a different type of question from the underlying merits of the case.

Certainly the panel could stop all motion on the case or even stay it pending Drake. This would presumably include the intervention motion.

I doubt that anything significant would change though. While Peruta is currently law I can't see any district issuing an order directing a sheriff to accept "self defense" for good cause while Drake is under review.

It would be much more interesting if the court granted her petition but denied en banc. If the full court didn't vote to take on the case Harris would have to appeal to SCOTUS. This would be interesting and telling. If they denied her request for a preliminary injunction (which would surely be her request) it would be a pretty strong signal of the ultimate outcome of Drake.

Of course, the court could GVR Drake on Monday. :D making all of this moot.

Well, in the event of a GVR in Drake, I would hope for some instruction like, "... reconsider in light of the 9CA's reasoning in Peruta v. San Diego, which this Court adopts."

The decision on the motion to intervene is just the procedural excuse for the Panel to stay the matter without risking an en banc vote.

Perhaps some District Courts will ignore the Peruta opinion while Drake is pending SCOTUS, but I bet that with each homicide in California, a no-issue county counsel will wonder with whether that homicide victim had an application in the "hold" pile for months while their county prayed for Peruta's reversal. It isn't a magic bullet, but it is persuasive.

For those counties, I definitely expect to see an exception to this result.

zokoz 04-18-2014 5:51 PM

I ran across this earlier today. Here is a letter filed with courts yesterday.

http://blog.californiarighttocarry.o...cus-Letter.pdf

Librarian 04-18-2014 6:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zokoz (Post 13907777)
I ran across this earlier today. Here is a letter filed with courts yesterday.

http://blog.californiarighttocarry.o...cus-Letter.pdf

Interesting. I was not previously aware that the 9th entertains random pen-pals. (I agree that 'judicial economy' might best be served by not taking the case en banc. Whether that consideration should be paramount I cannot say.)

ryan_j 04-18-2014 6:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Librarian (Post 13907965)
Interesting. I was not previously aware that the 9th entertains random pen-pals. (I agree that 'judicial economy' might best be served by not taking the case en banc. Whether that consideration should be paramount I cannot say.)

I believe Mr. Mayer had filed an amicus brief concerning the same issue - that it is a waste of time to go en banc with this, and that it should be taken up by the Supreme Court.

Here's the full version of the letter, up on M&A's page:

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...l-Analysis.pdf

This guy is... umm... interesting.

zokoz 04-18-2014 6:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Librarian (Post 13907965)
Interesting. I was not previously aware that the 9th entertains random pen-pals. (I agree that 'judicial economy' might best be served by not taking the case en banc. Whether that consideration should be paramount I cannot say.)

I agree, and a little late in the game I might add.

ryan_j 04-18-2014 6:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zokoz (Post 13908030)
I agree, and a little late in the game I might add.

He filed this way back in March

zokoz 04-18-2014 7:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ryan_j (Post 13908033)
He filed this way back in March

Well, I guess I should know what month it is.....:facepalm:

Thanks for pointing that out...

speedrrracer 04-18-2014 7:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zokoz (Post 13907777)
I ran across this earlier today. Here is a letter filed with courts yesterday.

http://blog.californiarighttocarry.o...cus-Letter.pdf

Very interesting stuff. I completely disagree with his suggestion that the court look into some statistics. That's rational basis, and the core of the 2A is above that.

I do agree with him that the 9th should deny en banc to Peruta, Baker, Prieto. Would like to know how he's so certain that SCOTUS will grant cert to Drake, or if he's just a zealot.

And this is a Brady Bunch lawyer? Very strange stuff, because not granting en banc means we all get our LTCs...

zokoz 04-18-2014 7:46 PM

I'm not sure how to take this guy. This letter to the court seems strange to me. I do like the part NO EN BANC.

Jsalud 04-18-2014 8:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by speedrrracer (Post 13908573)
Very interesting stuff. I completely disagree with his suggestion that the court look into some statistics. That's rational basis, and the core of the 2A is above that.

I do agree with him that the 9th should deny en banc to Peruta, Baker, Prieto. Would like to know how he's so certain that SCOTUS will grant cert to Drake, or if he's just a zealot.

And this is a Brady Bunch lawyer? Very strange stuff, because not granting en banc means we all get our LTCs...

No en banc prevents its from going to SCOTUS. If we win in the Supreme Court of the United States it will be the law of the land across the board. As it stands the 9th Circuit decision only applies to states under the 9th circuit.

If I understand that wrong please feel free to let me know.

zokoz 04-18-2014 8:23 PM

I found this interesting reading. It is a letter to Sheriffs and Chiefs on what is going on with Peruta.

https://www.google.com/url?q=http://..._Tn8DfNbae06cA

Drivedabizness 04-18-2014 9:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ryan_j (Post 13908033)
He filed this way back in March

I'm sure his Mom is very proud of his grammar, spelling and syntax. And I'm sure he was the honor grad of whatever diploma mill he graduated from. Maybe he and Bill Lockyer were classmates?

wildhawker 04-18-2014 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zokoz (Post 13908928)
I found this interesting reading. It is a letter to Sheriffs and Chiefs on what is going on with Peruta.

https://www.google.com/url?q=http://..._Tn8DfNbae06cA

"Adams, et al. v. Ed Prieto and Yolo County..."

Lol. At least get the case name right.

-Brandon

JohnBrian 04-19-2014 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drivedabizness (Post 13909404)
Quote:

Originally Posted by ryan_j (Post 13908033)
He filed this way back in March

I'm sure his Mom is very proud of his grammar, spelling and syntax. And I'm sure he was the honor grad of whatever diploma mill he graduated from. Maybe he and Bill Lockyer were classmates?

:biggrinjester:

ryan_j 04-19-2014 4:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jsalud (Post 13908779)
No en banc prevents its from going to SCOTUS. If we win in the Supreme Court of the United States it will be the law of the land across the board. As it stands the 9th Circuit decision only applies to states under the 9th circuit.



If I understand that wrong please feel free to let me know.



Incorrect. It can be petitioned to SCOTUS. Would they want to? Probably not. Given that they got Heller and McDonald out of SCOTUS their goal is to keep it out of there for as long as possible.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 4:35 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.