Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« More on Senator Yee | Main | Senator Yee's business card »

Peruta: opposition to motions to intervene

Posted by David Hardy · 28 March 2014 11:29 AM

Right here. As to the State, they have to agree that the court has the power to allow intervention in its discretion; as to everyone else (Brady Campaign, etc.) the argument seems clear that they have no standing to become parties. The State and they are seeking to intervene in order to file a motion for rehearing en banc.

3 Comments | Leave a comment

Anonymous | March 28, 2014 1:21 PM | Reply

What strategic goal is served by Peruta not objecting to the state's intervention, while objecting to all the other parties' proposed intervention?

kukuforguns | March 28, 2014 2:04 PM | Reply

The strategic goal is maintaining credibility. The AG requested leave to intervene pursuant to 2 arguments: (1) the state has the right to intervene; and (2) the court has discretion to allow the state to intervene. Peruta argued that the state has no right to intervene. Peruta concedes (graciously) that the court does have discretion to allow the state to intervene. Since Brady and the Police Chiefs don't have standing, Peruta argues that the court lacks discretion to allow them to intervene. If Peruta had argued that the court lacks discretion to allow the state to intervene, Peruta would have lost credibility. Allowing the state to intervene, by itself, does not change anything. It is only if the 9th Circuit grants the AG's request for en banc reconsideration that things get interesting.

Matthew Carberry | March 28, 2014 3:04 PM | Reply

Yup.

De-fang the snake, make your opponent's argument for them and frame it as much in your favor as you can for the people actually making the decision.

You look gracious (and the goodwill of those with power to make your life hard is never wasted) and knowledgeable (which reminds those with such power that you shouldn't be underestimated nor will you accept being condescended to).

Leave a comment