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/ |
These cases feel like they will never end.thanks for the update.
Sent from my HTCEVOV4G using Tapatalk 4 |
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... |
Quote:
|
bump for updates, including release of 9CA panel opinion.
|
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. |
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Time estimate: |
'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 ... |
Quote:
|
OP updated.
|
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. " |
Can you post what it says without having to signup for whatever it is they want you to sign up for?
:) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I have the PDF, the site is not allowing me to post beyond certain length.
Any other option? |
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.
|
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. |
Quote:
|
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 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
I ran across this earlier today. Here is a letter filed with courts yesterday.
http://blog.californiarighttocarry.o...cus-Letter.pdf |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Thanks for pointing that out... |
Quote:
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... |
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.
|
Quote:
If I understand that wrong please feel free to let me know. |
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 |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Lol. At least get the case name right. -Brandon |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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.