What's next for Peruta and Richards?

[aBrowningfan]

Some sheriffs will try intimidation and delays, but ultimately it won't stand. The whole "letters of recommendation" and "you're immoral if you have a speeding ticket" will be gone with the first lawsuit by someone who gets denied.

Compared to "good cause," the rest is peanuts because "good moral character" is used in many other professional fields and is pretty well defined and understood, while "friends and neighbors" scheme will stop, among other things, when those who "don't want to live next to an armed person" are dragged to court to testify during challenges of the denials, or when some "carefully selected applicants" provide references who refuse to talk to the sheriff.

I think this is the best route to pursue to shut down attempts to turn GMC inside out as a way to deny CCW apps. But it will take litigation to stop the abuse of GMC.

[Paladin]

(1)(a) If CA AG does NOT get intervenor status in Peruta, will a CA9 judge then be able to request sua sponte en banc appeal?

(1)(b) If yes re. (1)(a), within how long after what date will they have to request it? If no, how long after they say CA AG can't intervene until Peruta is finalized?

(2)(a) Am I correct in assuming that if Yolo-Pietro is denied their request for en banc review in Richards that a CA9 judge CANNOT then make a sua sponte request for en banc review?

(2)(b) If Peruta does not go en banc, but Richards does, will Peruta be stayed?

[Gray Peterson]

(1)(a) If CA AG does NOT get intervenor status in Peruta, will a CA9 judge then be able to request sua sponte en banc appeal?

They can't. That time is over.

(1)(b) If yes re. (1)(a), within how long after what date will they have to request it? If no, how long after they say CA AG can't intervene until Peruta is finalized?

7 days, but the panel could issue the mandate immediately upon a decision to deny intervention.

(2)(a) Am I correct in assuming that if Yolo-Pietro is denied their request for en banc review in Richards that a CA9 judge CANNOT then make a sua sponte request for en banc review?

Either a party can request a vote, or a judge. If the party requests it, and denial of en banc occurs, a judge requesting it doesn't get the ability to get a revote of the denial.

(2)(b) If Peruta does not go en banc, but Richards does, will Peruta be stayed?

Only the Peruta 3 judge panel has the authority to stay the mandate. If they deny the AG intervenor request, by normal course of appellate action, the mandate will be issued 7 days after. Once the 11 judge panel is seated in Richards, it's possible they could withdraw the mandate months after the fact.

I do not believe the way these decisions were released are an accident.

[Paladin]

Thx for all the answers.

Only the Peruta 3 judge panel has the authority to stay the mandate. If they deny the AG intervenor request, by normal course of appellate action, the mandate will be issued 7 days after. Once the 11 judge panel is seated in Richards, it's possible they could withdraw the mandate months after the fact.

I do not believe the way these decisions were released are an accident.

"Chess, not checkers."

Three follow up Qs:

(1) Do the Peruta appellants have another (reply/response) brief to submit, or is intervention ready to be decided? http://michellawyers.com/guncasetrac...rutavsandiego/

(2) Who decides in Peruta re. the CA AG intervention?

(3) How long is that likely to take?

[press1280]

They can't. That time is over.

7 days, but the panel could issue the mandate immediately upon a decision to deny intervention.



Either a party can request a vote, or a judge. If the party requests it, and denial of en banc occurs, a judge requesting it doesn't get the ability to get a revote of the denial.



Only the Peruta 3 judge panel has the authority to stay the mandate. If they deny the AG intervenor request, by normal course of appellate action, the mandate will be issued 7 days after. Once the 11 judge panel is seated in Richards, it's possible they could withdraw the mandate months after the fact.

I do not believe the way these decisions were released are an accident.

So since we haven't heard anything, does that pretty much mean no judge is requesting rehearing, or what?

[dantodd]

Thx for all the answers.


"Chess, not checkers."

Three follow up Qs:

(1) Do the Peruta appellants have another (reply/response) brief to submit, or is intervention ready to be decided? http://michellawyers.com/guncasetrac...rutavsandiego/

(2) Who decides in Peruta re. the CA AG intervention?

(3) How long is that likely to take?

The briefings surrounding intervention are complete. We are now waiting for the panel to issue their decision. I'd intervenor status is granted there will be briefings regarding the decision to recommend an en banc heading. We will likely gar about the motion to intervene after SCOTUS announces their decision in the Drake petition for cert

[Paladin]

The briefings surrounding intervention are complete. We are now waiting for the panel to issue their decision. I'd intervenor status is granted there will be briefings regarding the decision to recommend an en banc heading. We will likely gar about the motion to intervene after SCOTUS announces their decision in the Drake petition for cert

I just looked over (again), the Peruta's opposition brief to intervention. Basically, they say, "okay" to CA AG intervention, but "no" to everyone else. This is in contrast to the firm "No!" CGF/SAF says to CA AG intervention in Richards. CGF/SAF even goes so far as to say that judicial estoppel and more should stop intervention in both Peruta and Richards (p. 15 - 19).

Will the panel deciding intervention in Peruta be able to factor in the arguments made in Richards against intervention even though Peruta/Michel did not raise them?

[CurlyDave]

...Will the panel deciding intervention in Peruta be able to factor in the arguments made in Richards against intervention even though Peruta/Michel did not raise them?

It is the same panel, so they will definitely have read the Richards documents.

I still don't think they will grant an en banc in Richards without one in Peruta. These guys are very smart men, and they know very well that all Richards does is say :"See Peruta." In fact if they grant en banc in Peruta, it automatically suspends Richards.

The one reason I can see for granting both is that they will see arguments from more people if they do that.

[Gray Peterson]

Thx for all the answers.


"Chess, not checkers."

Three follow up Qs:

(1) Do the Peruta appellants have another (reply/response) brief to submit, or is intervention ready to be decided? http://michellawyers.com/guncasetrac...rutavsandiego/

It's ready to be decided.

(2) Who decides in Peruta re. the CA AG intervention?

The three judge panel in Peruta. That would be O'Scannlain, Thomas, Callahan. No other panel of the 9th Circuit may decide. Them and only them.

(3) How long is that likely to take?

Roll a magic 8 ball.I would assume not before April 21st because of the Drake cert petition.

[Gray Peterson]

I just looked over (again), the Peruta's opposition brief to intervention. Basically, they say, "okay" to CA AG intervention, but "no" to everyone else. This is in contrast to the firm "No!" CGF/SAF says to CA AG intervention in Richards. CGF/SAF even goes so far as to say that judicial estoppel and more should stop intervention in both Peruta and Richards (p. 15 - 19).

Will the panel deciding intervention in Peruta be able to factor in the arguments made in Richards against intervention even though Peruta/Michel did not raise them?

CGF/SAF, or more specifically Alan Gura, made the arguments I would have wanted to see in the Peruta response basically throwing the entire history of the AG's avoidance tactics in their face. Of course, the same panel reads those briefings first. If a judge asks, the panel will send an internal email to the rest of the active judges explaining why the Richards case should not go en banc. It essentially takes the form of an informal legal briefing to the entire circuit by the lead judge of the panel, which is the brief I would love to see but definitely never will.

[IVC]

CGF/SAF, or more specifically Alan Gura, made the arguments I would have wanted to see in the Peruta response basically throwing the entire history of the AG's avoidance tactics in their face.

There was a procedural problem in Peruta that precluded this. If I am not mistaken AG was not properly notified (?)

[Gray Peterson]

There was a procedural problem in Peruta that precluded this. If I am not mistaken AG was not properly notified (?)

That's an interesting legal question. The sheriff may be acting as a state actor so that may eliminate that.

In the end it doesn't really matter. I hope the 3 judge panel denies intervention power to the AG.

[Paladin]

That's an interesting legal question. The sheriff may be acting as a state actor so that may eliminate that.

Acc. to FN1 (p. 9), of the Peruta (Michel) opposition brief, Scocca held that the sheriff is a state actor in re. issuing CCWs.

[Paladin]

Roll a magic 8 ball.I would assume not before April 21st because of the Drake cert petition.

Wow. Sounds like we're talking weeks, not months, re. a decision about intervention. (ETA: Has anyone started thinking about where to hold multiple CGN celebrations around the state (and streamed live online)? I don't want to jinx things by "counting my chickens before our eggs are hatched", but we can't wait until the last minute either.)

If the Peruta panel does not allow CA AG intervention, this thing could be wrapped up before June 1st. Then we just need to get as many people to flood sheriffs offices (and the local PDs to spread the workload out to reduce bottlenecks), BEFORE any possible stay is issued by Richards going en banc.

A related aside: Ala Co SO on their CCW voicemail (510-208-9890) now says they will accept and hold apps w/SD=GC pending the resolution of CA AG's efforts. CGNers in Alameda County may want to get their apps in to be at the head of the line....

[Paladin]

A related aside: Ala Co SO on their CCW voicemail (510-208-9890) now says they will accept and hold apps w/SD=GC pending the resolution of CA AG's efforts.

In this, Alameda is joining San Mateo, Santa Clara, and San Diego in all allowing people to submit apps now w/SD=GC to get a place in line and holding them pending the resolution of Peruta.

I guess this also indicates that NONE of those counties will require their own separate legal action to force them to issue CCWs for "mere" SD. Who's that going to leave us to sue: SF? CoCoCo? LA? Marin? (LOL! That will be Bambi Meets Godzilla II)