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
  #1441  
Old 11-26-2014, 11:48 AM
Bangzoom's Avatar
Bangzoom Bangzoom is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: San Fernando Valley
Posts: 6,533
iTrader: 41 / 100%
Default

How about laws go through this much BS before they become laws???
__________________
Wanna Buy Some Rifles???


  #1442  
Old 11-26-2014, 11:51 AM
bulgron bulgron is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Santa Clara County
Posts: 2,783
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

My youngest kid will be out of high school in 5 years. At that time, I fully intend to move out of California for a large number of reasons, only one of which is the truly crappy gun laws in this state.

My guess is that in 5 years time, I still won't have a California CCW because this case still won't have been decided once and for all.
__________________


Proud to belong to the NRA Members' Council of Santa Clara County

Disclaimer: All opinions are entirely my own.
  #1443  
Old 11-26-2014, 12:34 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,818
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The appeal is of the panel decision denying intervention to the CAAG, Brady's, and CPOA. I'm not sure they are allowed in these kinds of requests to undermine the underlying decision from February. This is about intervention, not about carry.
  #1444  
Old 11-26-2014, 12:43 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,880
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M. D. Van Norman View Post
Are you serious? The only kind of voters you can motivate with free stuff are the ones who will vote for candidates promising more ďfree stuff,Ē usually the same candidates who want to consign the Second Amendment to the dustbin of history.

No. The problem isnít that too few vote. Itís that too many vote.

To be fair, though, it took me many years to see through the propaganda and recognize this fact for myself.
...

And, if you learn from the old party bosses, you can get people to vote your way if YOU are the one offering free stuff. If you offer free food to completely uniformed voters, and you provide literature, without other opportunities for research besides your own material...

Just like the old parties.

Republicans keep wondering how they can compete with 'free stuff' when the answer is sitting looking them right in the eye...
  #1445  
Old 11-26-2014, 1:03 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 Gray Peterson View Post
The appeal is of the panel decision denying intervention to the CAAG, Brady's, and CPOA. I'm not sure they are allowed in these kinds of requests to undermine the underlying decision from February. This is about intervention, not about carry.
Correct. But if this appeal is granted, it is highly likely that Peruta, as a whole case, will be in front of an en banc court. That is a dangerous place to go, as the majority of the court will likely be hostile to carry. We got a good draw for the 3-judge panel, we are far less likely to get one for en banc.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
I'm most famous for my positive mental attitude.
  #1446  
Old 11-26-2014, 1:09 PM
dca965's Avatar
dca965 dca965 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 819
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertMW View Post
Correct. But if this appeal is granted, it is highly likely that Peruta, as a whole case, will be in front of an en banc court. That is a dangerous place to go, as the majority of the court will likely be hostile to carry. We got a good draw for the 3-judge panel, we are far less likely to get one for en banc.
So, in light of the new appeal to the previous denial of intervention, whom is it now that rules on such an appeal - the original 3-Judge panel who originally ruled on the intervention motion, a new 3-Judge panel, or the entire 9th? IANAL.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by dca965 View Post
CA CCW 2013 | Applied in person 11/4 | App approved 12/10 | Interview 12/17 | Denial (GC) Ltr. 1/14 | AZ CCW 2014 | Applied via mail 03/20 | Entered by DPS 05/02 | Approved 5/10 | Received 5/16 | OR CHL 2014 | Applied in person 04/17 | Approved 4/30 | Received 5/9 | WA CPL 2014 | Applied in person 04/18 | Approved 6/9 | Received 6/12 | NV CFP 2014 | Applied 09/25 | Received 1/15 | UT CFP 2015 | Applied 11/26 | Received 1/16
  #1447  
Old 11-26-2014, 1:17 PM
DanMedeiros DanMedeiros is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 22
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Does this latest appeal do to the entire 9th circuit? Can the Mandate still be issued? What's next here?
  #1448  
Old 11-26-2014, 1:25 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 dca965 View Post
So, in light of the new appeal to the previous denial of intervention, whom is it now that rules on such an appeal - the original 3-Judge panel who originally ruled on the intervention motion, a new 3-Judge panel, or the entire 9th? IANAL.
Ok, redo on this answer, I originaly said it would go to an en banc panel, but if this is a motion for reconsideration it would go to a 3 judge motions panel first. That panel could then make a ruling on whether it agrees with the original panel decision, or if intervention should be decided on by an en banc panel. I only say that because I believe that a 3 judge panel could not override the decision of a 3 judge panel.

Luckily there is this nice little ditty in the FRAP...

Quote:
(4) Motions for Clarification,
Reconsideration or Rehearing.
Motions for clarification,
reconsideration or rehearing of a motion are disfavored by the Court and are rarely
granted. The filing of such motions is discour
aged. (See Circuit Rule 27-10 as to time limits
on filing motions for reconsideration.) (Rev. 7/95, 7/98)
Hopefully that applies here.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
I'm most famous for my positive mental attitude.

Last edited by RobertMW; 11-26-2014 at 1:37 PM..
  #1449  
Old 11-26-2014, 1:50 PM
bulgron bulgron is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Santa Clara County
Posts: 2,783
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

There's a chance that the 9th will deny en banc review, right?
__________________


Proud to belong to the NRA Members' Council of Santa Clara County

Disclaimer: All opinions are entirely my own.
  #1450  
Old 11-26-2014, 1:59 PM
MudCamper's Avatar
MudCamper MudCamper is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sebastopol
Posts: 4,357
iTrader: 30 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oc3068 View Post
So when is this going to stop.
Appeal, denied.. Appeal the denial, denied.. Appeal the denial to appeal the denial, denied.. can this go on forever???
Yes this is my question. Can the AG just do this forever? Literally. She just keeps doing it, forever. Every time she is denied. She just appeals again. And the next CA AG picks up the torch and continues.

Even if legally she cannot do this, what if she does? (It looks like this will be the case.) Because the practical effect of this is, it gives anti-2A sheriffs all the excuse they need to keep denying permits with "self-defense" as good cause. They'll just keep saying, "it's still being appealed. Permit denied."
  #1451  
Old 11-26-2014, 2:05 PM
dca965's Avatar
dca965 dca965 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 819
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertMW View Post
Ok, redo on this answer, I originaly said it would go to an en banc panel, but if this is a motion for reconsideration it would go to a 3 judge motions panel first. That panel could then make a ruling on whether it agrees with the original panel decision, or if intervention should be decided on by an en banc panel. I only say that because I believe that a 3 judge panel could not override the decision of a 3 judge panel.

Luckily there is this nice little ditty in the FRAP...

Quote:
(4) Motions for Clarification,
Reconsideration or Rehearing.
Motions for clarification,
reconsideration or rehearing of a motion are disfavored by the Court and are rarely
granted. The filing of such motions is discour
aged. (See Circuit Rule 27-10 as to time limits
on filing motions for reconsideration.) (Rev. 7/95, 7/98)
Hopefully that applies here.
Thank you Sir! That is a Dainty Ditty Indeed.... and I most certainly hope it applies here!
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by dca965 View Post
CA CCW 2013 | Applied in person 11/4 | App approved 12/10 | Interview 12/17 | Denial (GC) Ltr. 1/14 | AZ CCW 2014 | Applied via mail 03/20 | Entered by DPS 05/02 | Approved 5/10 | Received 5/16 | OR CHL 2014 | Applied in person 04/17 | Approved 4/30 | Received 5/9 | WA CPL 2014 | Applied in person 04/18 | Approved 6/9 | Received 6/12 | NV CFP 2014 | Applied 09/25 | Received 1/15 | UT CFP 2015 | Applied 11/26 | Received 1/16
  #1452  
Old 11-26-2014, 2:08 PM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,361
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

If she is denied reconsideration en banc she if free to petition SCOTUS to review her request for intervenor status. If debuted there Peruta is officially dead.
  #1453  
Old 11-26-2014, 2:14 PM
wazdat's Avatar
wazdat wazdat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: San Diego, PRK
Posts: 508
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

"I move to intervene in this case." - AG Harris
"Motion denied." - 9th Circuit Court
"No, no. I STRENUOUSLY move to intervene in this case..." - AG Harris

Really?!? Insert your favorite expletive here ___________.
__________________

ET1 - U.S. Navy, Retired
________________________________________

Politicians take note...

"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic..."

Last edited by wazdat; 11-26-2014 at 2:17 PM..
  #1454  
Old 11-26-2014, 2:16 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,818
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertMW View Post
Correct. But if this appeal is granted, it is highly likely that Peruta, as a whole case, will be in front of an en banc court. That is a dangerous place to go, as the majority of the court will likely be hostile to carry. We got a good draw for the 3-judge panel, we are far less likely to get one for en banc.

No, it doesn't. The panel decision being requested for reconsideration for en banc is the November intervention denial. If they get a majority of active judges to vote yes to rehear, only the November panel decision on intervention will be vacated, not the February carry decision.

Read the FRAP again.
  #1455  
Old 11-26-2014, 2:30 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,618
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
For it to really be worth anything, it'll have to be one that forces recognition of an out of state permit by one's home state.

If, as has been the case with all national reciprocity bills that have thus far been proposed, it requires that the permit in question be issued by one's home state, or that one's home state is exempt from the requirement of recognizing the out of state permits one might hold, then the legislation will be worthless. Concealed means concealed, which means that nobody will have any idea that out-of-state visitors are carrying (and, realistically, you're talking about perhaps 10% of the out-of-state visitors carrying anyway).
The last few versions to get voted on didn't require home state permits, just permits issued by "a state". It just didn't allow for a NY resident to carry in NY on a FL license.
  #1456  
Old 11-26-2014, 2:42 PM
faterikcartman's Avatar
faterikcartman faterikcartman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: San Diego area.
Posts: 1,407
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
The appeal is of the panel decision denying intervention to the CAAG, Brady's, and CPOA. I'm not sure they are allowed in these kinds of requests to undermine the underlying decision from February. This is about intervention, not about carry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
No, it doesn't. The panel decision being requested for reconsideration for en banc is the November intervention denial. If they get a majority of active judges to vote yes to rehear, only the November panel decision on intervention will be vacated, not the February carry decision.

Read the FRAP again.
Why do you think they're trying to intervene? To argue the prices of lemons in Britany in June? Call me crazy, but I'm guessing they're trying to intervene in order to take over for Gore in defending the case so they can challenge the underlying ruling.
__________________
I am not your lawyer. I am not giving you or anyone else who reads my posts legal advice. I am making off-the-cuff comments that may or may not be accurate and are personal, not professional, opinion. If you think you need a lawyer please retain a qualified attorney in your jurisdiction. Your local bar association may be able to help if you need a referral.

Two Weeks!: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/a...p/t-59936.html
  #1457  
Old 11-26-2014, 2:51 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 Gray Peterson View Post
No, it doesn't. The panel decision being requested for reconsideration for en banc is the November intervention denial. If they get a majority of active judges to vote yes to rehear, only the November panel decision on intervention will be vacated, not the February carry decision.

Read the FRAP again.
Sorry, clarification needed. If a panel over rules the original decision on interviener status, the original panel will have to then consider the AG's motion for en-banc, even if the panel decides that the case should not be brought up en banc, this case is the one that the liberal court would like to dissapear, and would be the most likely to take as en banc to overturn the February decision.

I didn't describe the steps between reversal of intervention and vacation of the decision, but I surely contemplated them.

I should also state that this is the worst case scenario. The AG being granted interviener status does not gurantee a reversal, but it sharply increases the odds of it in my book.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
I'm most famous for my positive mental attitude.

Last edited by RobertMW; 11-26-2014 at 2:54 PM..
  #1458  
Old 11-26-2014, 3:07 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 15,197
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
If they get a majority of active judges to vote yes to rehear, ...
... *and* the majority of judges decide to grant the intervenor status.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
  #1459  
Old 11-26-2014, 3:27 PM
GOLDEN GUN GOLDEN GUN is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Sonoma County
Posts: 2,378
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

The petition for an en banc review does not affect the peruta ruling yet... If it gets approved then the decision is stayed again until a decision is made by the en banc panel. Theoretically he can't not issue based on it, but he might break the law and choose that route.

Meaning potentially another window from November 12 to until the court allows the request for en banc review on her motion to intervene.

Here is how it can play out..
Court must decide if they want an en banc decision on Harris denial.
If an en banc decision is granted, the court will then re decide to allow or not to allow Harris to intervene.
If Harris is allowed to intervene, the court will then decide if they want an en banc review on the peruta decision.
If the court decides to hear it en banc, then the court must make a decision on peruta again.

If the court appeals decides against Harris in any of those 4 possible decisions, Harris is done and Peruta is law unless the supreme court hears it which they can choose not to or it gets an opposite ruling in another circuit. The most recent court cases has the most authority.

Make sense?

Harris needs to be 4 out of 4 to have a chance.. If she gets the first one, decision is stayed until the court of appeals ruled against Harris in any of the other 3 decisions
  #1460  
Old 11-26-2014, 3:28 PM
El Toro's Avatar
El Toro El Toro is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,404
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

I am trying to be optimistic here so I think that Harris (and all the other sacks of infringers) are going to fail to get a re-hearing for intervention because they were not a party and actually opted to not participate.

The remainder of the court could have sua sponte en banc once already so it seems moot for any judge at this point to step in. That is unless the larger court hasn't been paying attention or there are twistings of procedure going on that we can only speculate about.
__________________
Quote:
Western civilization represents the pinnacle of true human progress, and we should rightly be proud of it, delusional leftists be damned.

Quote:
We know it's the family and the church not government officials who know best how to create strong and loving communities. And above all else we know this, in America, we don't worship government, we worship God.
President Donald J. Trump, Oct. 13, 2017
  #1461  
Old 11-26-2014, 3:35 PM
GOLDEN GUN GOLDEN GUN is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Sonoma County
Posts: 2,378
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by El Toro View Post
I am trying to be optimistic here so I think that Harris (and all the other sacks of infringers) are going to fail to get a re-hearing for intervention because they were not a party and actually opted to not participate.

The remainder of the court could have sua sponte en banc once already so it seems moot for any judge at this point to step in. That is unless the larger court hasn't been paying attention or there are twistings of procedure going on that we can only speculate about.
Except than Harris can take the decision not to allow her to intervene to the supreme court. If the Supreme Court grants it it gets remanded back to the court of appeals to then allow her to intervene or not..

Or she may also try her luck in the other pending cases.. But she can file a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court in any of the 4 decisions Te court of appeals has to make.
  #1462  
Old 11-26-2014, 3:38 PM
LostInSpace LostInSpace is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 299
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
The panel decision being requested for reconsideration for en banc is the November intervention denial. If they get a majority of active judges to vote yes to rehear, only the November panel decision on intervention will be vacated, not the February carry decision.
It is interesting that they are choosing to pursue the route a number of people thought was rather unlikely. I thought it was not out of the question because, in addition to one other reason, it seemed like the best option for trying to prevent the order from ever issuing in Peruta. Is there still a chance at this point that the order might issue, or is everything likely to be on hold until all the en banc issues are resolved?
  #1463  
Old 11-26-2014, 3:42 PM
Danodog's Avatar
Danodog Danodog is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: East San Diego County
Posts: 2,303
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

Extremely disappointed......
__________________
Calguns Contributor
NRA Patron Member
CRPA Member
What have you done for 2A lately?

  #1464  
Old 11-26-2014, 3:44 PM
numpty's Avatar
numpty numpty is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,213
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Danodog View Post
Extremely disappointed......
...and irritated.
  #1465  
Old 11-26-2014, 3:46 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 caliguy2004 View Post
Here is how it can play out..
Court must decide if they want an en banc decision on Harris denial.
If an en banc decision is granted, the court will then re decide to allow or not to allow Harris to intervene.
If Harris is allowed to intervene, the court will then decide if they want an en banc review on the peruta decision.
If the court decides to hear it en banc, then the court must make a decision on peruta again.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
I'm most famous for my positive mental attitude.
  #1466  
Old 11-26-2014, 4:09 PM
<blocked>'s Avatar
<blocked> <blocked> is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 248
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I'm still holding out hope that the 9th will be unwilling to rehear a case so closely tied to an existing SCOTUS ruling
__________________
The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals.
Well, when there aren't enough criminals,
one makes them.
One declares so many things to be a crime that it
becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
- Ayn Rand
  #1467  
Old 11-26-2014, 4:09 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 15,197
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caliguy2004 View Post
If Harris is allowed to intervene, the court will then decide if they want an en banc review on the peruta decision.
...
If the court decides to hear it en banc, then the court must make a decision on peruta again.
The missing step is that if she is allowed to intervene, it only vacates panel's decision not to grant her status. It goes back to the panel to determine whether to grant her request for en banc.

Even if she gets standing through this maneuver, assuming panel doesn't grant her request, we are back to sua sponte possibility in the 9th. However, it would open door for her to ask for cert at SCOTUS, which might be our biggest break, albeit at the cost of an extra delay.

Remember, Madigan opted not to ask for cert in Moore for fear of SCOTUS declaring the right to carry exists and pretty much stopping all this nonsense. Harris would have to do similar calculation.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
  #1468  
Old 11-26-2014, 4:10 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 kcbrown View Post
I'm most famous for my positive mental attitude.
  #1469  
Old 11-26-2014, 4:12 PM
bulgron bulgron is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Santa Clara County
Posts: 2,783
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertMW View Post
I wish this site had a +1 option.
__________________


Proud to belong to the NRA Members' Council of Santa Clara County

Disclaimer: All opinions are entirely my own.
  #1470  
Old 11-26-2014, 4:13 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

The way the decision was worded, I am doubtful she will get her day in court with this case. The 9th is going to slap her down again.
__________________
  #1471  
Old 11-26-2014, 4:34 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

AG's petition has been posted here.

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...ng-En-Banc.pdf
__________________
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.
  #1472  
Old 11-26-2014, 4:34 PM
Newport's Avatar
Newport Newport is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Riverside County
Posts: 194
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Looks to me Harris is making a last ditch "hail Mary" pass in an attempt to save political face. Mostly likely she is looking something, anything which will allow her to say, "Well, I did everything I could to reverse Peruta" knowing full well she should have joined the suit in the very beginning. I think patience with the wheels of justice will work to out favor on this one.
  #1473  
Old 11-26-2014, 4:37 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,818
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Peruta v. County of San Diego (CCW)

Quote:
Originally Posted by faterikcartman View Post
Why do you think they're trying to intervene? To argue the prices of lemons in Britany in June? Call me crazy, but I'm guessing they're trying to intervene in order to take over for Gore in defending the case so they can challenge the underlying ruling.

It's too late for Gore to appeal to en banc, so even if his lawyers change from James Chapin to Kamala Harris, the time for him to go en banc expired.

If a majority of the active judges decides to rehear the panels November intervention, only the intervention and the propriety of the denial of intervention by the 3 judge panel will be allowed to be discussed.

From the 9th circuit advisory:

Grant of Rehearing En Banc. When the Court votes to rehear a matter en banc, the Chief Judge will enter an order so indicating. The vote tally is not communicated to the parties. The three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to this Court or any district court of the Ninth Circuit, except to the extent adopted by the en banc court. (Rev. 1/1/00)


The panel opinion being spoken about is November panel decision.....

Last edited by Gray Peterson; 11-26-2014 at 4:41 PM..
  #1474  
Old 11-26-2014, 4:41 PM
CG of MP's Avatar
CG of MP CG of MP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 681
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Question

I guess now we know why we did not see anything remanded back to the originating court on Friday... Saturday, Monday, or Tuesday.... I guess that the 9th saw this coming and decided to forgo the extra paperwork.

What crap.

So WHO decides on this new stupidity? The original panel of 3, a new panel of 3, the entire court, or the presiding judge?
__________________
Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.
Miranda vs. Arizona
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes...
District of Columbia vs. Heller

Last edited by CG of MP; 11-26-2014 at 4:54 PM..
  #1475  
Old 11-26-2014, 4:48 PM
Grakken's Avatar
Grakken Grakken is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,102
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

of course this happened. I am so glad they can continually appeal until the Sun explodes. Our great Justice system at work.
__________________
NRA - Life Member

Guns don't kill people. People Kill people.
  #1476  
Old 11-26-2014, 4:54 PM
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

The only positive thing I can see from this case is that it's giving heck a lot of experience to the CRPA/NRA lawyers for future 2A related lawsuits here in CA.

Donated $50 to the NRA Legal Action Project.

https://www.nrailadonate.org/forms/d...013LegalAction
__________________
"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).

  #1477  
Old 11-26-2014, 6:26 PM
scootle's Avatar
scootle scootle is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 2,618
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

So frustrating. :angry:
__________________
#2A4CA -- it has begun! https://www.2aforca.org/
  #1478  
Old 11-26-2014, 6:52 PM
Scooterpilot Scooterpilot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 197
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

This process will take at least another year before it's resolved, so KH, in essence will get what she wants.
__________________
V/R
Chuck

I support the 2nd Amendment
NRA Life Time Member
  #1479  
Old 11-26-2014, 7:57 PM
bill_k_lopez bill_k_lopez is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 2,840
iTrader: 20 / 95%
Default

Doesn't she work for us?

Why can't we flood her with stop wasting our money calls & emails?
  #1480  
Old 11-26-2014, 8:11 PM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,361
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I wish Peruta showed some intent to appeal the decision on intervenor status should the en banc panel rule in favor of Harris. I doubt SCOTUS would approve of such intervention. But I'm pretty sure the Peruta team won't argue against intervention.
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 6:30 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