Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-12-2014, 10:20 AM
CZ man in LA's Avatar
CZ man in LA CZ man in LA is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,916
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Peruta - what happens next?

Reserved for anyone with legal expertise to explain to us in layman's terms what can come next and/or what we can expect as now they've denied intervention in Peruta.
__________________
"Prohibit the peasants from owning katanas, wakizashis, arrows, spears, or matchlock rifles. If the peasants are armed, they will not pay nengu (taxes) and they will not be subordinate to the officials."

Toyotomi Hideyoshi's Sword Hunt Edict of 1588, establishing the class division between the peasants (commoners) and the samurai (the governing elites).

  #2  
Old 11-12-2014, 10:21 AM
stphnman20's Avatar
stphnman20 stphnman20 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: SCV
Posts: 6,616
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Also interested to know.
  #3  
Old 11-12-2014, 10:22 AM
madsend81 madsend81 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: San Diego County
Posts: 917
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Wolfwood, counsel for Baker, posted this in the Intervention DENIED thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
In 7 days it will be[the law of the land]. That is when the mandate of the court will be issued per the appellate rules. However there is no stopping that now.
__________________
Disclaimer: For all you know, I am just some dude on the internet. The advice I give is worth what you have paid for it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Georgia Governor Nathan Deal, 2014
“People who follow the rules can protect themselves and their families from people who don’t follow the rules. The Second Amendment should never be an afterthought. It should reside at the forefronts of our minds.
  #4  
Old 11-12-2014, 10:29 AM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,361
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

What happens next is that Harris will appeal this denial. Whether to the en Banc panel or to SCOTUS I don't know. There is also the possibility that the full circuit will call the case up sua sponte and rehear the case.
  #5  
Old 11-12-2014, 10:32 AM
madsend81 madsend81 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: San Diego County
Posts: 917
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

From Michel & Associate's Facebook Page
Click here for link

Quote:
From Chuck Michel, Senior Partner at Michel & Associates

"The Peruta ruling was a long overdue recognition of the right to obtain a license to carry a firearm to defend yourself. The Attorney General’s next action will determine whether the Peruta case ends here. Attorney General Harris could seek review of her request to intervene in the appeal by an eleven judge “en banc” panel of the Ninth Circuit, or by the Supreme Court. Regardless, pending requests for en banc review in similar cases that benefitted from the work done in the Peruta case could imperil the Peruta ruling. Supreme Court review of the Peruta decision would resolve this important issue once and for all."
__________________
Disclaimer: For all you know, I am just some dude on the internet. The advice I give is worth what you have paid for it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Georgia Governor Nathan Deal, 2014
“People who follow the rules can protect themselves and their families from people who don’t follow the rules. The Second Amendment should never be an afterthought. It should reside at the forefronts of our minds.
  #6  
Old 11-12-2014, 11:13 AM
Haplo's Avatar
Haplo Haplo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 664
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

They'll probably appeal as it's a safe move, it would only be about the law concerning intervention, not ccw. So even if they lost in the Supreme Court it wouldn't have anything to do with ccw law.
__________________
  #7  
Old 11-12-2014, 11:15 AM
kaligaran's Avatar
kaligaran kaligaran is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Lone Star State
Posts: 4,805
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Who other than the defendant has legal standing to do an appeal?

(I'm a legal noob on these matters, please ELI5)
__________________
WTB: multiautomatic ghost gun with a .30-caliber clip to disperse with 30 bullets within half a second. Must include shoulder thing that goes up. Memberships/Affiliations: CERT, ARRL ARES, NRA Patron Member, HRC, CGN/CGSSA, Cal-FFL
  #8  
Old 11-12-2014, 11:27 AM
madsend81 madsend81 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: San Diego County
Posts: 917
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

While IANAL, my understanding is that nobody other than a loosing party to a lawsuit has grounds to appeal.
__________________
Disclaimer: For all you know, I am just some dude on the internet. The advice I give is worth what you have paid for it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Georgia Governor Nathan Deal, 2014
“People who follow the rules can protect themselves and their families from people who don’t follow the rules. The Second Amendment should never be an afterthought. It should reside at the forefronts of our minds.
  #9  
Old 11-12-2014, 11:32 AM
lorax3's Avatar
lorax3 lorax3 is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Santa Clara
Posts: 4,672
iTrader: 37 / 100%
Blog Entries: 3
Default

Sit tight for 7 days. We will know a lot more then.
__________________
You think you know, but you have no idea.

The information posted here is not legal advice. If you seek legal advice hire an attorney who is familiar with all the facts of your case.
  #10  
Old 11-12-2014, 11:46 AM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,988
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

I'm waiting for the lawyers to give a good summary, but my feeling is, we haven't won yet. There are Richards and Baker cases which are still live and could have en banc or appeals. It may take years before we get a resolution.
__________________
"Weakness is provocative."
Senator Tom Cotton, president in 2024
  #11  
Old 11-12-2014, 12:23 PM
the_quark's Avatar
the_quark the_quark is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,003
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
What happens next is that Harris will appeal this denial. Whether to the en Banc panel or to SCOTUS I don't know. There is also the possibility that the full circuit will call the case up sua sponte and rehear the case.
The consensus I've heard so far is that they can't call Peruta up sua sponte 1) because there's no one to defend it and 2) because the time limit has already run out.
__________________
Brett Thomas - @the_quark on Twitter -
Founding CGF Director and Treasurer; NRA Life Member; Ex-CRPA Director and Life Member; SAF Life Member; Peña Plaintiff
  #12  
Old 11-12-2014, 1:01 PM
NorCalAthlete's Avatar
NorCalAthlete NorCalAthlete is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: San Mateo
Posts: 1,770
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Even if Baker and Richards get appealed, Peruta can no longer be stayed correct?
__________________
Your views on any given subject are the sum of the media that you take in, scaled to the weight of the credibility of the source that provides it, seen through a lens of your own values, goals, and achievements.

You Are All Ambassadors, Whether You Like It Or Not

Pain is the hardest lesson to forget; Ego is the anesthesia that deadens the pain of stupidity.

Bureaucracy is the epoxy that lubricates the gears of progress.
  #13  
Old 11-12-2014, 1:21 PM
coryhenry's Avatar
coryhenry coryhenry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,315
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by lorax3 View Post
Sit tight for 7 days. We will know a lot more then.
1 Week!!!
__________________
Cory

"Every man dies, not every man really lives!"

  #14  
Old 11-12-2014, 1:23 PM
hornswaggled's Avatar
hornswaggled hornswaggled is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,652
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by coryhenry View Post
1 Week!!!
Suck it Kamala Harris!
__________________
NRA Endowment Member
SAF Defender's Club
  #15  
Old 11-12-2014, 1:23 PM
riddler408's Avatar
riddler408 riddler408 is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Fremont
Posts: 1,753
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by coryhenry View Post
1 Week!!!
lol, that is a refreshing change!
__________________
  #16  
Old 11-12-2014, 1:31 PM
eLeL eLeL is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Douglas County, CO
Posts: 216
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by coryhenry View Post
1 Week!!!
Nice to see progress. Wasn't it "2 weeks!" before?
  #17  
Old 11-12-2014, 1:32 PM
thayne's Avatar
thayne thayne is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: CA
Posts: 2,289
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

2 weeks - 1 week!
__________________
Quote:
"It wasn't a failure of laws," said Amanda Wilcox, who along with her husband, Nick, lobbies for the California chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "I just don't see how our gun laws could have stopped something like that."
  #18  
Old 11-12-2014, 1:51 PM
speedrrracer speedrrracer is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,357
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

So it looks like the only thing that has been resolved is that there is an end in sight for Harris....she can't keep going forever.

Harris can try and whine her way before the 9th and then, if necessary, SCOTUS, and SCOTUS can :

a) force the 9th to allow her to intervene, or
b) ignore Harris / tell Harris to go pound sand, whereupon her journey in the Peruta case will end.

if I'm reading Chuck correctly.

Of course many other parties can do many other things, such as sua sponte en banc, rulings from Richards et al, etc, etc., but that, AFAICT, is the most Harris can do here.
__________________
  #19  
Old 11-12-2014, 1:58 PM
lorax3's Avatar
lorax3 lorax3 is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Santa Clara
Posts: 4,672
iTrader: 37 / 100%
Blog Entries: 3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer View Post
Of course many other parties can do many other things, such as sua sponte en banc, rulings from Richards et al, etc, etc., but that, AFAICT, is the most Harris can do here.
The above looks correct to me.
__________________
You think you know, but you have no idea.

The information posted here is not legal advice. If you seek legal advice hire an attorney who is familiar with all the facts of your case.
  #20  
Old 11-12-2014, 2:15 PM
TacticalChihuahua's Avatar
TacticalChihuahua TacticalChihuahua is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 934
iTrader: 45 / 100%
Default

What is sua sponte?
__________________
____________________

  #21  
Old 11-12-2014, 2:17 PM
lorax3's Avatar
lorax3 lorax3 is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Santa Clara
Posts: 4,672
iTrader: 37 / 100%
Blog Entries: 3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Falz24 View Post
What is sua sponte?
The ability for the court to review the case on its own motion and without a request from one of the parties.
__________________
You think you know, but you have no idea.

The information posted here is not legal advice. If you seek legal advice hire an attorney who is familiar with all the facts of your case.
  #22  
Old 11-12-2014, 2:41 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 2,025
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the_quark View Post
The consensus I've heard so far is that they can't call Peruta up sua sponte 1) because there's no one to defend it and 2) because the time limit has already run out.
^^^^ this^^^^
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
  #23  
Old 11-12-2014, 2:52 PM
TacticalChihuahua's Avatar
TacticalChihuahua TacticalChihuahua is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 934
iTrader: 45 / 100%
Default

^^^^^^ so can they or can't they call peruta up sua sponte?
__________________
____________________

  #24  
Old 11-12-2014, 3:20 PM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,361
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Not 100% clear. I will be happy to defer to Brett's deeper knowledge but I was under the impression that the clock a oped until the intervention was heard. I agree that there is no respondent if Harris' denial is upheld so, as I said in the other thread, I think that Richards is likely to take the lead in the race to SCOTUS.
  #25  
Old 11-12-2014, 3:27 PM
RobertMW's Avatar
RobertMW RobertMW is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: 707
Posts: 2,119
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Falz24 View Post
^^^^^^ so can they or can't they call peruta up sua sponte?
The full court can. They "have" (That is a loose term since the court can basically do whatever the hell it wants) to bring it up to vote within 2-3 weeks. If half of the entire 9th circuit justices feel that it is worth taking to an en banc hearing, then it will be reheard. Someone did a very good analysis of what the probability of that happening is, unfortunately it is not good for us. There is a strong probability that it will happen. Although it would be pretty damn funny for it to happen, since sheriff Gore has already stated that he would not take part in any more proceedings, so who would be the prosecutor, and who would they be representing?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
I'm most famous for my positive mental attitude.
  #26  
Old 11-12-2014, 3:43 PM
HarryS HarryS is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 276
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
I'm waiting for the lawyers to give a good summary, but my feeling is, we haven't won yet. There are Richards and Baker cases which are still live and could have en banc or appeals. It may take years before we get a resolution.
An accountant by trade, but I don't see how Richards or Baker can derail Peruta since a summation of both cases is "Denied-see Peruta". If Peruta is the law of the land on its own two legs, where can someone go with either Richards or Baker?

I was understanding that the stay stopped the clock on sua sponte within the 9th, but as per another comment above, who'll attack Peruta since Harris has no standing and Gore refuses to play? So maybe the justices have 21 days, but they need two shoes for the walk and one is missing.

It appears the 9th would have to reverse the panel's denial for Harris to stand in for Gore, which would be fairly amazing given the basis/facts. Four years of active disinterest, and now she has a wedgie? That is a real leap.

The 9th has legendary skills when it comes to buffoonery, but there is a limit.
  #27  
Old 11-12-2014, 4:52 PM
Wolverine's Avatar
Wolverine Wolverine is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 737
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryS View Post
An accountant by trade, but I don't see how Richards or Baker can derail Peruta since a summation of both cases is "Denied-see Peruta". If Peruta is the law of the land on its own two legs, where can someone go with either Richards or Baker?

I was understanding that the stay stopped the clock on sua sponte within the 9th, but as per another comment above, who'll attack Peruta since Harris has no standing and Gore refuses to play? So maybe the justices have 21 days, but they need two shoes for the walk and one is missing.

It appears the 9th would have to reverse the panel's denial for Harris to stand in for Gore, which would be fairly amazing given the basis/facts. Four years of active disinterest, and now she has a wedgie? That is a real leap.

The 9th has legendary skills when it comes to buffoonery, but there is a limit.
This brings up a good question. Since a sua sponte en banc requires by design that the losing party is no longer interested (otherwise he would have petitioned for en banc and there would be no reason for the sua sponte route) what does the court do? Do they simply go by the pleadings in the record? Assign someone? Let Gore assign a proxy? Let it be one sided? Or, heaven forbid, they now allow Harris to intervene? Or something else entirely? Does anyone know how this is handled in other cases that went en banc sua sponte?

I also believe that the sua sponte clock was stopped and will now be restarted. I'm confident that the rules make sure that the judges get an opportunity to call for a vote somehow.
  #28  
Old 11-12-2014, 5:16 PM
blofeld42 blofeld42 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 19
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryS View Post
An accountant by trade, but I don't see how Richards or Baker can derail Peruta since a summation of both cases is "Denied-see Peruta". If Peruta is the law of the land on its own two legs, where can someone go with either Richards or Baker?
I'd think that, too. Once Peruta is published one would think the answer to those cases is "So sorry, issue already decided, good day." That would leave an en banc either via either sua sponte or a successful Harris appeal as the remaining routes.
  #29  
Old 11-12-2014, 5:21 PM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,361
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryS View Post
An accountant by trade, but I don't see how Richards or Baker can derail Peruta since a summation of both cases is "Denied-see Peruta". If Peruta is the law of the land on its own two legs, where can someone go with either Richards or Baker?
An en banc panel is considered a superior court to a 3 judge circuit panel. Therefore an en banc panel is not bound by 3 judge circuit panel precedence. This is the same reason SCOTUS is free to overturn circuit rulings.
  #30  
Old 11-12-2014, 6:21 PM
Kestryll's Avatar
Kestryll Kestryll is offline
Head Janitor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Occupied Reseda, PRK
Posts: 21,321
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Blog Entries: 3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the_quark View Post
The consensus I've heard so far is that they can't call Peruta up sua sponte 1) because there's no one to defend it and 2) because the time limit has already run out.
The no one to defend it aspect makes sense and hopefully will be a deciding factor.
However I spoke with Chuck Michel this morning and the 'clock' on a sua sponte en banc was stopped when Harris made her claim. It restarted today so they do have a window but the question is who would have standing to argue for the defense since Gore washed his hands of it.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA Life Member / SAF Life Member
Calguns.net an incorported entity - President.
The Calguns Shooting Sports Assoc. - Vice President.
The California Rifle & Pistol Assoc. - Director.
DONATE TO NRA-ILA, CGSSA, AND CRPAF NOW!
Opinions posted in this account are my own and unless specifically stated as such are not the approved position of Calguns.net, CGSSA or CRPA.
  #31  
Old 11-12-2014, 6:25 PM
Master_P Master_P is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 215
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Considering that the 9th Circus has judges like Pregerson (author of Chovan which subsequently hosed us in Enos) and Reinhardt (author of Silveria v. Lockeyer which Heller overturned), and considering that you only need one judge out of twenty-seven to call for sua sponte, you can bet the farm that one of these *****holes is going to make that call.

Meaning... either sua sponte on either the motion to intervene or the whole Peruta case itself.

Or Richards.

Or Baker.

There's no way these liberal f**ktards will go away quietly. The holidays are about to get interesting...
  #32  
Old 11-12-2014, 6:33 PM
Tripper's Avatar
Tripper Tripper is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Central Coast-Salinas
Posts: 7,747
iTrader: 102 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CZ man in LA View Post
Reserved for anyone with legal expertise to explain to us in layman's terms what can come next and/or what we can expect as now they've denied intervention in Peruta.
business as usual
  #33  
Old 11-12-2014, 6:37 PM
stix213's Avatar
stix213 stix213 is offline
AKA: Joe Censored
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Rafael
Posts: 17,317
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
The no one to defend it aspect makes sense and hopefully will be a deciding factor.
However I spoke with Chuck Michel this morning and the 'clock' on a sua sponte en banc was stopped when Harris made her claim. It restarted today so they do have a window but the question is who would have standing to argue for the defense since Gore washed his hands of it.
Can't they also sua sponte on today's decision whether Harris, brady, etc, have intervener status? So they sua sponte en banc for the main judgement, and also at the same time for the decision on intervener, then decide on intervner and give Harris the thumbs up, then Harris gets to defend a sua sponte en banc on the main judgement....

IANAL so have zero idea if that is even a possibility
__________________
Dev blog for the MMO game I'm developing 'Broadside: Perilous Waters'
https://broadside-game.blogspot.com/
https://store.steampowered.com/app/1...rilous_Waters/
  #34  
Old 11-12-2014, 6:38 PM
Tripper's Avatar
Tripper Tripper is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Central Coast-Salinas
Posts: 7,747
iTrader: 102 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryS View Post
An accountant by trade, but I don't see how Richards or Baker can derail Peruta since a summation of both cases is "Denied-see Peruta". If Peruta is the law of the land on its own two legs, where can someone go with either Richards or Baker?

I was understanding that the stay stopped the clock on sua sponte within the 9th, but as per another comment above, who'll attack Peruta since Harris has no standing and Gore refuses to play? So maybe the justices have 21 days, but they need two shoes for the walk and one is missing.

It appears the 9th would have to reverse the panel's denial for Harris to stand in for Gore, which would be fairly amazing given the basis/facts. Four years of active disinterest, and now she has a wedgie? That is a real leap.

The 9th has legendary skills when it comes to buffoonery, but there is a limit.
I dont recall any court actually stating there actually being a 'stay' ordered, my opinion would be the clock ran out on all of this long ago, i know a lot of sheriffs have made the statement that it was 'stayed' but how can that be accurate all the while other courts are 'citing' Peruta, suggesting it is decided, not stayed.
  #35  
Old 11-12-2014, 6:41 PM
JPagaduan's Avatar
JPagaduan JPagaduan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Nor Ca
Posts: 261
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quick question: if I was denied earlier this year, would I still be able to appeal my denial? Or rather, should I?

Or should I wait till next jan to re-apply?
__________________
Quote:
Quod Est Necessarium Est Licitum
  #36  
Old 11-12-2014, 7:22 PM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,361
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tripper View Post
I dont recall any court actually stating there actually being a 'stay' ordered, my opinion would be the clock ran out on all of this long ago, i know a lot of sheriffs have made the statement that it was 'stayed' but how can that be accurate all the while other courts are 'citing' Peruta, suggesting it is decided, not stayed.
The stay was ordered by O'Scannlain in his order pertaining to Harris' request for intervention.

Quote:
Proposed Intervenor State of California’s Motion to Extend Time to File a Petition for Rehearing En Banc and Stay Issuance of the Mandate, both filed with this Court on February 27, 2014, are GRANTED.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...6971_order.pdf
  #37  
Old 11-12-2014, 7:25 PM
Tripper's Avatar
Tripper Tripper is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Central Coast-Salinas
Posts: 7,747
iTrader: 102 / 100%
Default

ahh, thanks
so, how is it already citeable?
  #38  
Old 11-12-2014, 7:25 PM
Tripper's Avatar
Tripper Tripper is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Central Coast-Salinas
Posts: 7,747
iTrader: 102 / 100%
Default

not even sure how i missed that entry, oh well
  #39  
Old 11-12-2014, 7:31 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,447
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

I'm 95% confident the window for Sua Sponte is closed. This line from Oscainlain's order basically cements it as there is a set number of days from the release of the opinion that a Sua Sponte call can be made:
Quote:
This order does not extend the time for filing petitions for rehearing for any petitioner who did not move to intervene by February 27, 2014
That means the clock did not stop.

There is also a strong argument that AG Harris does not have standing to ask for review of her denial of intervenor status as she should have asked for that status in the District court and she is not a Party to Peruta.

Now I love that Chuck is trying to claim that the original carry case in the 9th Circuit is somehow bad. Sour grapes that Peruta will not go en banc or see a cert petition often?


Odds of an en banc in Richards - 15%.

Odds of a cert petition by Yolo County in Richards if no en banc - 99%

SCOTUS grant? Who the heck knows at this point.

But the right to carry a firearm in public for self defense will be the law on the west coast until SCOTUS or the en banc court tells us otherwise.

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
  #40  
Old 11-12-2014, 7:31 PM
dave_cg dave_cg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sunnyvale
Posts: 289
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryS View Post
If Peruta is the law of the land on its own two legs, where can someone go with either Richards or Baker?
IANAL, but my understanding is that since Peruta was decided by a 3 judge panel, an en banc panel hearing a case that depends on Peruta could rule that Peruta was wrongly decided. Its a bit of a fine point in the appeals court rules of rock-paper-scissors.
__________________
== The price of freedom is eternal litigation. ==
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 6:53 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2020, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.
Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Tactical Gear Military Boots 5.11 Tactical