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 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Stunning news | Main | Antigunners give presentations, with armed guard on standby »

Peruta v. San Diego--Sheriff's Response

Posted by David Hardy · 15 May 2014 08:27 AM

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 | May 15, 2014 9:16 AM | Reply

Interesting since at first he said he was going to start issuing permits

Matthew Carberry | May 15, 2014 4:46 PM | Reply

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.

Rich | May 16, 2014 8:13 AM | Reply

Matthew: Thanks, I thought I had read somewhere where he had said he would start issuing the permits.

Matthew Carberry | May 16, 2014 4:24 PM | Reply

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.

Leave a comment