What do you think is going to happen with Peruta

[TeddyBallgame]

[Tincon]

Kamala Harris doesn't have any strong grounds to to intervene in Peruta. That said, she will ultimately have grounds to intervene and request en banc on these issues in some other case. We are much better off having her intervene in Peruta, a case with an outstandingly well reasoned and researched opinion, and with top notch litigators behind it. Which is why her motion to intervene is not being opposed.

Motions made unopposed are usually granted. I can't see any real reason why the panel would deny intervention, I assume they want to protect their opinion as much as we do. So intervention will most likely be granted.

But the en banc rehearing will will be opposed, and I'm much less sure that it will be granted. The opinion is very strong, it would take quite a bit of work to poke any holes in it.

Either way, once intervention is granted, the result will be the same. Request for cert from SCOTUS by the losing side. Which, despite all the negative Nancys saying otherwise, will probably be granted, particularly if there is no en banc rehearing.

[CG of MP]

Tincon as long as you are reading tea leaves this afternoon, can you opine as to why in the h it is taking to long to hear anything new?

[Tincon]

Tincon as long as you are reading tea leaves this afternoon, can you opine as to why in the h it is taking to long to hear anything new?

Because they have other cases to deal with.

[ElvenSoul]

They are waiting it out hoping for a National Gun Ban

[TeddyBallgame]

Kamala Harris doesn't have any strong grounds to to intervene in Peruta. That said, she will ultimately have grounds to intervene and request en banc on these issues in some other case. We are much better off having her intervene in Peruta, a case with an outstandingly well reasoned and researched opinion, and with top notch litigators behind it. Which is why her motion to intervene is not being opposed.

Motions made unopposed are usually granted. I can't see any real reason why the panel would deny intervention, I assume they want to protect their opinion as much as we do. So intervention will most likely be granted.

But the en banc rehearing will will be opposed, and I'm much less sure that it will be granted. The opinion is very strong, it would take quite a bit of work to poke any holes in it.

Either way, once intervention is granted, the result will be the same. Request for cert from SCOTUS by the losing side. Which, despite all the negative Nancys saying otherwise, will probably be granted, particularly if there is no en banc rehearing.

so, if this plays out the way you've indicated, and, KH request cert from SCOTUS, do you think an injunction motion on the ruling will be granted until it can be heard

[Bert Gamble]

The 9th will allow the AG intervening status and allow her en banc

[Tincon]

so, if this plays out the way you've indicated, and, KH request cert from SCOTUS, do you think an injunction motion on the ruling will be granted until it can be heard

KH would be entitled to a 90 day stay, pending cert. SCOTUS could then extend it. The situation on the ground would not change much, however, until SCOTUS rules.

[Metal God]

The opinion is very strong, it would take quite a bit of work to poke any holes in it.

Well as much as I/we would like that to be true . The fact is if KH is aloud in , the 9th will call for en-banc ( ok maybe not fact but this is what I believe ) . I just don't see having all those flaming activist judges there and they fail to get the votes for en-banc . I believe they couldn't care less what the opinion is or what it says . In fact they may even be a little upset that the opinion called out the other courts that have many of the same views as most of the judges on the 9th .

I say she gets to intervene and the court goes en-banc and over turns the ruling . Yep you heard it here first . NOT what I want , just what I think is going to happen .

[Southwest Chuck]

Kamala Harris doesn't have any strong grounds to to intervene in Peruta. That said, she will ultimately have grounds to intervene and request en banc on these issues in some other case. We are much better off having her intervene in Peruta, a case with an outstandingly well reasoned and researched opinion, and with top notch litigators behind it. Which is why her motion to intervene is not being opposed.

Motions made unopposed are usually granted. I can't see any real reason why the panel would deny intervention, I assume they want to protect their opinion as much as we do. So intervention will most likely be granted.

But the en banc rehearing will will be opposed, and I'm much less sure that it will be granted. The opinion is very strong, it would take quite a bit of work to poke any holes in it.

Either way, once intervention is granted, the result will be the same. Request for cert from SCOTUS by the losing side. Which, despite all the negative Nancys saying otherwise, will probably be granted, particularly if there is no en banc rehearing.

I concur. You read my mind Tincon

[selfshrevident]

Well as much as I/we would like that to be true . The fact is if KH is aloud in , the 9th will call for en-banc ( ok maybe not fact but this is what I believe ) . I just don't see having all those flaming activist judges there and they fail to get the votes for en-banc . I believe they couldn't care less what the opinion is or what it says . In fact they may even be a little upset that the opinion called out the other courts that have many of the same views as most of the judges on the 9th .

I say she gets to intervene and the court goes en-banc and over turns the ruling . Yep you heard it here first . NOT what I want , just what I think is going to happen .

This.

[Garand1911]

If the court already knows that it does not want to go En banc, and they know that KH is going to request En banc, why bother even granting her status ?


My being a pessimist, i predict the worst case scenario. sorry.

[mshill]

If the court already knows that it does not want to go En banc, and they know that KH is going to request En banc, why bother even granting her status ?


My being a pessimist, i predict the worst case scenario. sorry.

If they don't grant her standing she can appeal that to SCOTUS. If they grant her standing and deny her en banc then she can appeal the case to SCOTUS. My personal feeling is that they (the majority of the three judge panel) want the case to be brought to SCOTUS by the AG of CA so it has the biggest impact and exposure possible. It gives SCOTUS the oppurtunity to make a statement that directly impacts a large portion of the citizens in the country.

[jeremiah12]

On one hand I want this to happen. It would leave us with virtual shall issue. Then again, the next fight will be over good moral character.

After reading Tincon's post, I think he has made the most accurate prediction. This is a very strong and well reasoned opinion. If anything is going to go before SCOTUS, it should be this one.

If it really is true that SCOTUS really does not want to take another 2A case because Kennedy is the wild card that neither side can read, this would be the case to send up through having the AG appealing to have it overturned. If SCOTUS denies cert then we at least win in the 9th district.

If cert is granted, I believe it is so well written and backed by the best of the best litigators that it has the best chance of being upheld by SCOTUS.

Then again, IANAL

[Bigbuyer2477]

On one hand I want this to happen. It would leave us with virtual shall issue. Then again, the next fight will be over good moral character.

After reading Tincon's post, I think he has made the most accurate prediction. This is a very strong and well reasoned opinion. If anything is going to go before SCOTUS, it should be this one.

If it really is true that SCOTUS really does not want to take another 2A case because Kennedy is the wild card that neither side can read, this would be the case to send up through having the AG appealing to have it overturned. If SCOTUS denies cert then we at least win in the 9th district.

If cert is granted, I believe it is so well written and backed by the best of the best litigators that it has the best chance of being upheld by SCOTUS.

Then again, IANAL

If the SCOTUS rule against Peruta, it would be a case that could potentially uproot conceal carry laws in other states. Right now you have individual states setting their own laws regarding bearing arms in public, either by choice or by court decision (Illinois 7th circuit decision) a negative outcome for Peruta basically gives politicians the ammunition to change status quo. Not saying every state will, but I can see a few that might jump on the opportunity.

If there weren't so many gun hating people in California, there wouldn't be so many gun hating politicians. If a California style politician were to try this in New Mexico he or she would be run out of office by sundown. I might be the only guy in town who doesn't have 20 guns in the house.

Even if Peruta stand I can see California taking a page out of DCs play book to somehow circumvent the law. Like said before, 50 yard qualification, 20 year background checks, senator recommendations, 52 week ccw training class and God knows what else they can think of.