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

« Beyond belief | Main | 9th Circuit website on Peruta v. San Diego »

Richards case reversed

Posted by David Hardy · 5 March 2014 03:05 PM

CalGuns Foundation's press release notes the event. This is their and SAF's suit against the sheriff of Yolo County, over restrictive "may issue" permit policies. The 9th Circuit (same panel as in the earlier case) reversed the trial court ruling, in favor of the sheriff, in an unpublished opinion that applies its earlier, pro-2A case.

Now, this sheriff can ask for en banc in his case.

2 Comments | Leave a comment

Jim March | March 5, 2014 4:40 PM | Reply

The same three judges heard three cases on the same subject on the same day. They decided for some reason to release the decision in Peruta first, now Richards out of Yolo County has just two pages to it with no additional reasoning behind it. Which is OK since they did a great job in Peruta.

There will be another one released soon from the Hawaiian case, Baker v. Kealoha. Either the Hawaiian defendants or the Sheriff of Yolo County could appeal their respective cases en banc but if they do, I would imagine some judge on the 9th would ask if Peruta should be reviewed en banc. That will trigger a full vote, and if they vote for en banc they'll probably stay the others or include them. If however Peruta doesn't get an en banc vote I suspect the other two won't either.

Because the same three-judge panel is involved, and there's no new analysis in the decisions, Richards and Baker are no longer very important. What matters is, will the split hold between the 9th and the 2nd/3rd/4th circuits, and if so will that pressure the Supremes to take up Drake out of New Jersey?

Matthew Carberry | March 5, 2014 7:42 PM | Reply

My WAG is the Ninth were waiting to see what the Peruta Sheriff, who had the most population, prestige, and press recognition at stake would do; since he didn't buck, as you say the other two are kinda redundant.

I'd think Yolo county isn't likely to tread where San D fears to, and Ventura and Orange have already folded.

I'd say the remaining wild card is Hawai'i as they are a state that has never issued. No possibility of "going with the flow" like the may-issue counties in Cali.

Leave a comment