Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang
A couple of points.
1. This is an odd filing from the Peruta plaintiffs.
2. These cases are almost exactly identical - since they came from the same theory and complaint. The only difference is one additional theory - prior restraint - that SAF/CGF added.
3. There is no way that having Richards heard the same day by the same panel will hurt Peruta.
4. This isn't a motion to consolidate or divide time.
5. Is anyone curious about why the Peruta plaintiffs are ok with allowing sheriff's to pass judgement on people's "good moral character" in furtherance of their enumerated fundamental right?
6. Wouldn't having more argument time and more briefing pages brought to bear at the same time be a net positive?
7. Do we all really want to get in a situation where two different panels end up with different decisions on the right to bear arms in California? En banc mess anyone?
Curiouser and curiouser...
-Gene
|
Would it matter at this point? If the denial was for A -- and A gets removed, they can't just go back and deny for B, can they? Can a motion to be heard on same day, lead to a joining of arguments? It seems like a good idea if I were in the habit of listening to people argue, might as well hear them at the same time. It does seem like it would push the city more than anyone. I don't doubt that SAF could be ready to argue this next week if they had to. The city on the other hand, would probably get smashed at that point.