« Comparison of death tolls in shooting rampages | Main | Astonishing ruling! »
Oral arguments in three 9th Circuit cases
I haven't listened to the third one yet, but the first two are challenges to California sheriffs refusing to issue permits to carry (now required for all handgun carry), under California's "may issue" regime.
Peruta v. San Diego, backed by NRA and California Rifle and Pistol. Paul Clement argues. Audio here
Richards v. Prieto, backed by SAF and Calguns. Alan Gura argues. Audio here.
Baker v. Kealoha, backed by the Hawaii Defense Foundation. Audio here.
The panel sounded skeptical at the sheriffs' cases, which suggests a favorable outcome.
The sheriffs had a novel defense: the infringement of the right to arms is a product of the State legislation. The sheriffs merely have the power to lift that, so their only role is either to let the State infringement continue, or to provide relief from it. Therefore, they should not be liable.
I don't think that's a good argument. Suppose California enacted a law forbidding political speech unless authorized by a sheriff. One sheriff says "OK, in my county everyone may speak freely." He shouldn't be a defendant. Another sheriff says "in my county, only my friends may speak on politics." I think he's a valid defendant.
Comments
You will love the third one. Listen to what the attorneys says to the judge when she said he "shot himself in the foot".
Also, it was stated, not sure by who, perhaps Gura, that the Sheriff is the State Defendant in these matters, per the California Sup Ct....don't remember the case cited.
I think all three cases were handed as best as could be, as this is the 9th we are talking about. Again, the best one to listen to is the 3rd case...lol.
Posted by: 5thovNov at December 9, 2012 11:52 AM
Very articulate arguments from Paul Clement in Peruta. WELL worth the listen to anyone interested in this issue (right to bear arms).
Posted by: Carl from Chicago at December 9, 2012 09:17 PM
Hawaii's case seems weakest, at least procedurally. It's understandable that they seem to want to be in line behind the others.
Interestingly, everyone seemed to be in a pretty good mood. Is this characteristic of this court?
Posted by: Jeff at December 10, 2012 07:01 AM