« Stunning news | Main | Antigunners give presentations, with armed guard on standby »
Peruta v. San Diego--Sheriff's Response
Right here. In response to the court's questions, the sheriff says he supports California's motion to intervene, and case is not moot since he won't issue permits until the court orders him to do so (which would be after the appeal is remanded to the district court).
4 Comments | Leave a comment
Rich,
I think he had said *he* wouldn't ask for en banc, and he would take applications, but he wouldn't issue until the case was "settled."
Basically trying to have his political cake by not appealing, even though rightfully he was the only one with real standing to do so; the state's claim being, if not inappropriate, at least questionable in timing.
Matthew: Thanks, I thought I had read somewhere where he had said he would start issuing the permits.
I'd have to go back and look, and I am not a lawyer, but IIRC the time period for members of the Court themselves to ask for en banc has ended or is close to it.
So, the Court now has to rule on the AG's request to intervene, which is not a slam-dunk even with Peruta conceding there may be standing for the AG to do so under a couple precedents.
Then, if the AG's intervenor status is granted, I think the Court will still have to actually vote whether to go en banc as the AG is requesting.
I don't think anything to come is automatic.
What I don't know is, if Peruta stands, whether Yolo County or Hawaii (Richards and Baker) can appeal their cases since they will have been decided under Peruta. If Peruta is "settled law" do they have a case left?
If Peruta stands, and they can't appeal it directly, then winning an appeal on their own cases with the law against them seems unlikely.
Interesting since at first he said he was going to start issuing permits