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.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-21-2013, 12:13 AM
fizux's Avatar
fizux fizux is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,541
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Peruta v. County of San Diego (CCW) [En Banc LOSS 6/7/16]

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/
Attached Files
File Type: pdf 9th.Cir._10-56971_113.pdf (626.6 KB, 106 views)
File Type: pdf gov.uscourts.ca9.10-56971.131.0.pdf (169.9 KB, 19 views)
File Type: pdf gov.uscourts.ca9.10-56971.135.0.pdf (51.1 KB, 17 views)
File Type: pdf Marin Sheriff Amicus Motion and Brief.pdf (206.8 KB, 55 views)
File Type: pdf 10-56971ebo.pdf (45.0 KB, 30 views)

Last edited by rkt88edmo; 06-17-2015 at 9:38 AM.. Reason: updates
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-21-2013, 12:43 AM
woods's Avatar
woods woods is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 474
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

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

Sent from my HTCEVOV4G using Tapatalk 4
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-21-2013, 7:55 PM
rugershooter rugershooter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,273
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

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...
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-21-2013, 10:34 PM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,087
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drivedabizness View Post
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.
__________________
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT--

Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation.

Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-13-2014, 6:41 PM
fizux's Avatar
fizux fizux is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,541
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

bump for updates, including release of 9CA panel opinion.
__________________
Nationwide Master List of Current 2A Cases, courtesy of Al Norris @ TFL.

Reloading Clubs: SF, East Bay

Case Status: Peņa v. Cid (Handgun Roster). SF v. 44Mag (Mag Parts Kits). Bauer v. Harris (DROS Fees). Davis v. LA (CCW policy). Jackson v. SF (Ammo/Storage). Teixeira (FFL Zoning). First Unitarian v. NSA (Privacy). Silvester (Waiting Period). Schoepf (DROS Delay). Haynie (AW ban). SFVPOA v. SF (10+ mag possession ban). Bear in Public: Drake (3CA); Moore (7CA); Richards, Peruta, McKay (9CA).
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-14-2014, 9:40 AM
Jimi Jah's Avatar
Jimi Jah Jimi Jah is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 6,966
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

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.

Last edited by Jimi Jah; 02-14-2014 at 9:45 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-14-2014, 11:11 AM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 32,761
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

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.
__________________
Calguns Wiki, Magazine Qs, Knife laws

Unless there is some way to amend a bill so you would support it,
the details do not matter until the Governor signs or allows the bill to become law.

Ask CA law questions in the How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me Forum
- most questions that start 'Is it legal ...' go there.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-14-2014, 11:34 AM
lear60man's Avatar
lear60man lear60man is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Socal
Posts: 787
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimi Jah View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-14-2014, 1:04 PM
fizux's Avatar
fizux fizux is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,541
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lear60man View Post
"


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.
__________________
Nationwide Master List of Current 2A Cases, courtesy of Al Norris @ TFL.

Reloading Clubs: SF, East Bay

Case Status: Peņa v. Cid (Handgun Roster). SF v. 44Mag (Mag Parts Kits). Bauer v. Harris (DROS Fees). Davis v. LA (CCW policy). Jackson v. SF (Ammo/Storage). Teixeira (FFL Zoning). First Unitarian v. NSA (Privacy). Silvester (Waiting Period). Schoepf (DROS Delay). Haynie (AW ban). SFVPOA v. SF (10+ mag possession ban). Bear in Public: Drake (3CA); Moore (7CA); Richards, Peruta, McKay (9CA).
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-14-2014, 1:58 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 32,761
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

'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 ...
__________________
Calguns Wiki, Magazine Qs, Knife laws

Unless there is some way to amend a bill so you would support it,
the details do not matter until the Governor signs or allows the bill to become law.

Ask CA law questions in the How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me Forum
- most questions that start 'Is it legal ...' go there.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Last edited by Librarian; 02-14-2014 at 2:05 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 02-14-2014, 2:17 PM
thayne's Avatar
thayne thayne is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: CA
Posts: 2,281
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimi Jah View Post
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.
__________________
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."
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-07-2014, 9:18 AM
fizux's Avatar
fizux fizux is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,541
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

OP updated.
__________________
Nationwide Master List of Current 2A Cases, courtesy of Al Norris @ TFL.

Reloading Clubs: SF, East Bay

Case Status: Peņa v. Cid (Handgun Roster). SF v. 44Mag (Mag Parts Kits). Bauer v. Harris (DROS Fees). Davis v. LA (CCW policy). Jackson v. SF (Ammo/Storage). Teixeira (FFL Zoning). First Unitarian v. NSA (Privacy). Silvester (Waiting Period). Schoepf (DROS Delay). Haynie (AW ban). SFVPOA v. SF (10+ mag possession ban). Bear in Public: Drake (3CA); Moore (7CA); Richards, Peruta, McKay (9CA).
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-17-2014, 6:42 PM
soul soul is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 153
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default 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.

"
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-17-2014, 6:49 PM
Grakken's Avatar
Grakken Grakken is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Diego
Posts: 995
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

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

__________________
NRA - Life Member

Guns don't kill people. People Kill people.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-17-2014, 7:47 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 1,633
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by soul View Post
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.
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-17-2014, 7:48 PM
Dirtbozz's Avatar
Dirtbozz Dirtbozz is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 303
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grakken View Post
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.
__________________
"A FREE PEOPLE OUGHT NOT ONLY BE ARMED AND DISCIPLINED, BUT THEY SHOULD HAVE SUFFICIENT ARMS AND AMMUNITION TO MAINTAIN A STATUS OF INDEPENDENCE FROM ANY WHO MIGHT ATTEMPT TO ABUSE THEM, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT."

- GEORGE WASHINGTON
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-17-2014, 8:00 PM
Dirtbozz's Avatar
Dirtbozz Dirtbozz is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 303
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grakken View Post
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.
__________________
"A FREE PEOPLE OUGHT NOT ONLY BE ARMED AND DISCIPLINED, BUT THEY SHOULD HAVE SUFFICIENT ARMS AND AMMUNITION TO MAINTAIN A STATUS OF INDEPENDENCE FROM ANY WHO MIGHT ATTEMPT TO ABUSE THEM, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT."

- GEORGE WASHINGTON
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-18-2014, 6:37 AM
soul soul is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 153
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I have the PDF, the site is not allowing me to post beyond certain length.
Any other option?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-18-2014, 11:20 AM
fizux's Avatar
fizux fizux is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,541
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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.
__________________
Nationwide Master List of Current 2A Cases, courtesy of Al Norris @ TFL.

Reloading Clubs: SF, East Bay

Case Status: Peņa v. Cid (Handgun Roster). SF v. 44Mag (Mag Parts Kits). Bauer v. Harris (DROS Fees). Davis v. LA (CCW policy). Jackson v. SF (Ammo/Storage). Teixeira (FFL Zoning). First Unitarian v. NSA (Privacy). Silvester (Waiting Period). Schoepf (DROS Delay). Haynie (AW ban). SFVPOA v. SF (10+ mag possession ban). Bear in Public: Drake (3CA); Moore (7CA); Richards, Peruta, McKay (9CA).
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-18-2014, 11:36 AM
fizux's Avatar
fizux fizux is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,541
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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.
__________________
Nationwide Master List of Current 2A Cases, courtesy of Al Norris @ TFL.

Reloading Clubs: SF, East Bay

Case Status: Peņa v. Cid (Handgun Roster). SF v. 44Mag (Mag Parts Kits). Bauer v. Harris (DROS Fees). Davis v. LA (CCW policy). Jackson v. SF (Ammo/Storage). Teixeira (FFL Zoning). First Unitarian v. NSA (Privacy). Silvester (Waiting Period). Schoepf (DROS Delay). Haynie (AW ban). SFVPOA v. SF (10+ mag possession ban). Bear in Public: Drake (3CA); Moore (7CA); Richards, Peruta, McKay (9CA).
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 04-18-2014, 11:53 AM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,277
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fizux View Post
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.
__________________
"Freedom begins with an act of defiance"

Quote for the day:
Quote:
"..the mind is the weapon and the hand only its extention. Discipline your mind!" Master Hao, Chenrezi monastery, Valley of the Sun
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-18-2014, 11:55 AM
caliberetta's Avatar
caliberetta caliberetta is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: OC
Posts: 1,476
iTrader: 57 / 100%
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-18-2014, 12:05 PM
fizux's Avatar
fizux fizux is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,541
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Untamed1972 View Post
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 § 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 View Post
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 View Post
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.
__________________
Nationwide Master List of Current 2A Cases, courtesy of Al Norris @ TFL.

Reloading Clubs: SF, East Bay

Case Status: Peņa v. Cid (Handgun Roster). SF v. 44Mag (Mag Parts Kits). Bauer v. Harris (DROS Fees). Davis v. LA (CCW policy). Jackson v. SF (Ammo/Storage). Teixeira (FFL Zoning). First Unitarian v. NSA (Privacy). Silvester (Waiting Period). Schoepf (DROS Delay). Haynie (AW ban). SFVPOA v. SF (10+ mag possession ban). Bear in Public: Drake (3CA); Moore (7CA); Richards, Peruta, McKay (9CA).
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-18-2014, 12:06 PM
fizux's Avatar
fizux fizux is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,541
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caliberetta View Post
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.
__________________
Nationwide Master List of Current 2A Cases, courtesy of Al Norris @ TFL.

Reloading Clubs: SF, East Bay

Case Status: Peņa v. Cid (Handgun Roster). SF v. 44Mag (Mag Parts Kits). Bauer v. Harris (DROS Fees). Davis v. LA (CCW policy). Jackson v. SF (Ammo/Storage). Teixeira (FFL Zoning). First Unitarian v. NSA (Privacy). Silvester (Waiting Period). Schoepf (DROS Delay). Haynie (AW ban). SFVPOA v. SF (10+ mag possession ban). Bear in Public: Drake (3CA); Moore (7CA); Richards, Peruta, McKay (9CA).
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-18-2014, 12:07 PM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,362
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fizux View Post
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. making all of this moot.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-18-2014, 12:32 PM
fizux's Avatar
fizux fizux is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,541
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
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. 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.
__________________
Nationwide Master List of Current 2A Cases, courtesy of Al Norris @ TFL.

Reloading Clubs: SF, East Bay

Case Status: Peņa v. Cid (Handgun Roster). SF v. 44Mag (Mag Parts Kits). Bauer v. Harris (DROS Fees). Davis v. LA (CCW policy). Jackson v. SF (Ammo/Storage). Teixeira (FFL Zoning). First Unitarian v. NSA (Privacy). Silvester (Waiting Period). Schoepf (DROS Delay). Haynie (AW ban). SFVPOA v. SF (10+ mag possession ban). Bear in Public: Drake (3CA); Moore (7CA); Richards, Peruta, McKay (9CA).
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-18-2014, 5:51 PM
zokoz zokoz is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 31
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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

http://blog.californiarighttocarry.o...cus-Letter.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 04-18-2014, 6:15 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 32,761
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zokoz View Post
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.)
__________________
Calguns Wiki, Magazine Qs, Knife laws

Unless there is some way to amend a bill so you would support it,
the details do not matter until the Governor signs or allows the bill to become law.

Ask CA law questions in the How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me Forum
- most questions that start 'Is it legal ...' go there.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-18-2014, 6:24 PM
ryan_j ryan_j is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sussex County, NJ
Posts: 292
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 04-18-2014, 6:24 PM
zokoz zokoz is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 31
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 04-18-2014, 6:24 PM
ryan_j ryan_j is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sussex County, NJ
Posts: 292
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zokoz View Post
I agree, and a little late in the game I might add.
He filed this way back in March
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 04-18-2014, 7:35 PM
zokoz zokoz is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 31
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryan_j View Post
He filed this way back in March
Well, I guess I should know what month it is.....

Thanks for pointing that out...
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 04-18-2014, 7:38 PM
speedrrracer speedrrracer is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,466
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zokoz View Post
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...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 04-18-2014, 7:46 PM
zokoz zokoz is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 31
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 04-18-2014, 8:04 PM
Jsalud Jsalud is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Tracy, CA
Posts: 126
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 04-18-2014, 8:23 PM
zokoz zokoz is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 31
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 04-18-2014, 9:30 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 1,633
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryan_j View Post
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?
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 04-18-2014, 10:08 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,407
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zokoz View Post
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
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 04-19-2014, 12:09 AM
JohnBrian's Avatar
JohnBrian JohnBrian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bakersfield, Checnyfornia
Posts: 958
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drivedabizness View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryan_j View Post
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?
__________________
. . . #BlackRifleLivesMatter

do those Armour plates really stop 5.56 rounds ? what about 7.62. . . . Shoot-it

"Armor"...you're not in the UK. Google "affectation" . . . -hanko

Maybe it was to protect him from a hamgun. . . . chuckdc


Quote:
Originally Posted by tankarian View Post
To the OP: good luck with your new life in free America. I am counting the days until I will be able to escape this open air communist reeducation camp named California.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 04-19-2014, 4:38 AM
ryan_j ryan_j is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sussex County, NJ
Posts: 292
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jsalud View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

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 11:23 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, 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 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.