Interesting that the same exact 3-judge panel has both this and the Peruta cases. I guess if they can get in line with Heller/MacDonald it could work out well for us!

UHHHH, maybe because they were heard one after the other on the same day?

Just an FYI

Does anyone know if there is a date either of these decisions by the 9th have to be made by? Or is it just whenever they feel like it?

Curious also. Was thinking of trying to get my ccw before Christmas.

The have no deadline but average 6 months to a year.

Part of the delay may be related to another case (Mehl) which had procedural priority at 9CA, so the decision in this case would have had to follow Mehl's holding if it was on point. Mehl came out recently, and thankfully didn't do any damage, so the coast is clear for the Richards/Peruta/Baker panel.

"The STENCH from the BENCH is making me CLENCH"
-Michael Alan Weiner

Curious if the panel would even start working on their opinion before Mehl was decided? If not then we could be waiting a while, to the point where if this were THE case to go to SCOTUS it wouldn't happen until the 2014-2015 term.

Just for info, Mehl was unpublished, but could it still be cited as direct application? Did Boyd v. Benton County (a case I'm thinking off the top of my head) make mention of that or is it not optional for judges to cite unpublished material? When I listen to oral arguments (every night at work) in the 9th Cir., I hear Counsel sometimes cite unpublished holdings, and they (for the most part) will make sure that it's known that whatever is cited is unpublished.

Edit:
One other quick note, the 3 cases in Peruta, Richards & Baker were heard by the same panel in one court session.

Erik.

Unpublished cases generally cannot be cited as binding precedent to support an argument. (Why they choose to avoid publication is a mystery.) As you say, if you want the court to consider an unpublished case, you MUST declare it as unpublished. As such, the case is persuasive, non-binding authority. "Justice O'Scannlain, You might want to consider this case."
The court must follow binding case law and authority, but can dismiss persuasive authority without comment or consideration.

Because the case doesn't add any useful jurisprudence in the eyes of the panel. In Mehl, the case went away for administrative reasons (didn't complete application, etc.) that were unrelated to the 2A issues raised.

I thought I read in another thread that they went back and published it

I just looked around the ca9 and ecf.ca9 pages, and nothing about going back to publish it. The only thing that is moving about the case is the petition for rehearing en banc, and that is a pending decision. My hope is that it is not reheard. I don't even know if briefs are due or not at this point.

I'm starting to wonder at this point if Peruta, Richards & Baker are being delayed pending the Mehl en banc reconsideration decision.

Erik.

That about makes sense, and the authority for that might be here in Boyd v. Benton County, 374 F.3d 773, 781 (9th Cir. 2004), no?

"In the Ninth Circuit, we begin our inquiry by looking to binding precedent. See Capoeman v. Reed, 754 F.2d 1512, 1514 (9th Cir. 1985). If the right is clearly established by decisional authority of the Supreme Court or this Circuit, our inquiry should come to an end. On the other hand, when ‘‘there are relatively few cases on point, and none of them are binding,’’ we may inquire whether the Ninth Circuit or Supreme Court, at the time the out-of-circuit opinions were rendered, would have reached the same results. See id. at 1515."

But Boyd doesn't tell us that cases which look to unpublished authority must be rendered unpublished, correct?

The Supreme Court talks about their own precedent "ha[ving] direct application in a case, yet appear[ing] to rest on reasons rejected in some other line of decisions", and how "the Court of Appeals should follow the case which directly controls," (Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 484 (1989)), but I think that this was an admonition to the lower courts from the Supreme Court that thou shalt not tinker with long standing Supreme Court precedent, even if it has no stare decisis effect before any court, which is probably why the Boyd Court didn't mention Rodriguez for that purpose, no? Anyone care to chime in on that one? I've been kinda interested in that part of case law lately.

Erik.