Will a Sykes/Peruta win be stayed while being appealed?

[N6ATF]

LOL!

[jb7706]

Wow, tough crowd.

The many years of beatings have made many of us calloused and hard, yes. It's easier to set your expectations low and be pleasantly surprised when they are exceeded.

Then again, after our recent wins I'm feeling more optimistic than ever.

[hoffmang]

A win would probably be stayed pending appeal. However, that stay doesn't mean that a county would continue to not issue or not start issuing.

-Gene

[Mulay El Raisuli]

De Factos will be carefully studied by de Jure who will Stare Decisisly at the plaintiff while rendering their verdict.

Oh! Legal puns.

So dorky...

Pulling the life out of me...

Fading fast....

arrrgggghhhh.......


The Raisuli

[dantodd]

any decision will be appealed and, as Gene said, a decision in our favor will likely be stayed it opens a whole can of worms that cannot be closed again: what about CCWs that are issued strictly under the case in question? Same as prop 8 and marriage licenses being issued to same sex couples being issued pending the outcome of appeals.

However; there is a FUNDAMENTAL difference in the two cases. Same sex marriage wasn't protected by a superior court, in this case the RKBA IS protected by SCOTUS and it's a fundamental right. Once the court speaks, even pending an appeal, many counties are going to be hesitant to open themselves up to potential lawsuits of their own for civil rights violations by denying law abiding citizens their right "to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation."

[Paladin]

any decision will be appealed and, as Gene said, a decision in our favor will likely be stayed it opens a whole can of worms that cannot be closed again: what about CCWs that are issued strictly under the case in question? Same as prop 8 and marriage licenses being issued to same sex couples being issued pending the outcome of appeals.

No biggie. The issuing authority (CLEO), just pulls the permits. Happens all the time now when a CCW'er does something that disqualifies him to have a CCW (e.g., drunk driving, or . . . ceasing to be a member of the sheriff's posse ).

[dantodd]

No biggie. The issuing authority (CLEO), just pulls the permits. Happens all the time now when a CCW'er does something that disqualifies him to have a CCW (e.g., drunk driving, or . . . ceasing to be a member of the sheriff's posse ).

No, it's a huge difference. You cannot pull a permit simply because you changed your mind. This is one of the areas that no one pursued with Sandra Hutchens and as for leaving The Posse, that one is in federal court right now (as I'm sure you know.) Once you have a permit you have a substantive interest in that permit so you are entitled to due process in its revocation which is not the case before you are issued the permit.

[Paladin]

No, it's a huge difference. You cannot pull a permit simply because you changed your mind. This is one of the areas that no one pursued with Sandra Hutchens and as for leaving The Posse, that one is in federal court right now (as I'm sure you know.)

It won't be pulled just because the CLEO changes their mind, but because the appellate court overrules/reverses the trial court and says the 2nd A does NOT gut CA's GC requirement.

Once you have a permit you have a substantive interest in that permit so you are entitled to due process in its revocation which is not the case before you are issued the permit.

I cannot make an informed comment re. this since I am not a expert on the laws re revoking permits. But remember, a substantive interest is not the same as a substantial interest. The interest may be substantive but insubstantial, esp since they are routinely pulled for cause. The cause here is the AC overruling the TC.

Why would a court even want to risk going down that road? As I wrote earlier, that involves weighing the pluses and minuses of a stay or not.

Time will tell.

[dantodd]

It won't be pulled just because the CLEO changes their mind, but because the appellate court overrules/reverses the trial court and says the 2nd A does NOT gut CA's GC requirement.

It is because the LEO "changed his/her mind" because they don't have good cause to revoke. You think your driver's license could be revoked because DMV simply decided to change their policy?

[Paladin]

It is because the LEO "changed his/her mind" because they don't have good cause to revoke. You think your driver's license could be revoked because DMV simply decided to change their policy?

Again, the issuing authority did not change their own policy.

We're assuming the TC says SD is GC, so that waives/eliminates the CLEO's policy re GC. Next we're assuming the AC then reverses the TC, so, if that reversal is not stayed, the CLEO's policy re. GC is then legal and applied again.

The CLEO won't have to retroactively apply their GC requirements and pull permits. They could just wait until the permits issued after the TC's decision expire and not reissue new ones, ending the CCW'ers "substantive interest." End of problem.

[wildhawker]

I think Paladin's worry is a bit unfounded.

If a win is stayed, the status quo will remain generally intact. Remember that their friends have permits, too, and that every time they make a move they'll face some additional work (which they *hate*).

We're watching them. Closely.

[dantodd]

The CLEO won't have to retroactively apply their GC requirements and pull permits. They could just wait until the permits issued after the TC's decision expire and not reissue new ones, ending the CCW'ers "substantive interest." End of problem.

Possibly. But that is 2 years down the road and the case is much more likely to have been decided, plus it is 2 years in which the good guy isn't disarmed and at the mercy of potential bad guys.