« Podcast on Bloomberg Law | Main | Buffalo NY seizes deceased gun owners' firearms »
Peruta intervention denied!
Ninth Circuit order here. Peruta essentially held unconstitutional California's combination of "may issue" carry permits and banning all carry, open as well as concealed, absent such a permit. It was brought against the county sheriff. He announced he would not appeal further (to en banc rehearing or for cert.). California, which had not been sued and had not participated, then moved to intervene and take over, as did Brady Campaign (which probably had no standing and was just looking for media coverage). The panel denied both motions by a 2-1 ruling.
California can always move for rehearing en banc as to its motion. But apparently the Circuit wasn't willing to review the case itself en banc (which it can do on its own motionif a majority of judges want to), so odds there are not good. Ah, now I think I remember proceedings were stayed until this motion was ruled upon, so maybe the time period for voluntary en banc only now begins.
7 Comments | Leave a comment
Just for "what-ifs", if I remember correctly, unlike in Peruta, the Chief and Sheriff in Baker and Richards respectively declared their intention to appeal their rulings, which were based on the Peruta decision, en banc but such appeals were pending until Peruta was "settled."
Assuming no voluntary en banc, does this decision mean Peruta is "settled" and thus their appeal processes can move forward?
How many years has Peruta been dragging on? Nothing says 'the system is broken' more than the length of time and the amount of money it takes to resolve court cases.
A good question from another forum....
Suppose the 9th calls for a sua sponte en banc hearing. Who will argue against the panel's decision? Harris has no standing and Gore wants out.
Also, the substance of the decisions in Richards and Baker is "you lose-see Peruta". If Peruta stands on its own legs, how can either case be used to challenge Peruta?
I guess there are answers, not a lawyer by trade.
I wonder how the many other California Counties and Sheriffs who are de-facto Shall Issue and don't rely upon "good cause" nonsense to issue CCW's can impact this. I had no problem getting a CCW in El Dorado County after I cleared the background check.
.....California has 22 Sheriffs who support the organization Sheriffs for the second amendment. I think that's your answer.
Despite the ruling San Diego Sheriff Gore is refusing to change policy until all other possible appeals with related cases are finished! How can he do that without violating the court ruling?
My understanding is that an off-panel judge has 21 days to organize an appeal and then the whole population of judges votes for/against en banc.
I don't think it is a slam dunk that en banc will occur or that the panel will be overruled.
The "good cause" lever has been the primary way for open-minded progressives to deny carry permits. This decision does not make CA shall issue, though.
The process is still convoluted and expensive compared to other states, and there is the issue of what "good moral character" objectively is. It is a big setback for some, which may control more people, but are in a minority by land mass and number of agencies.
The majority opinion is very well-written and it will take some real buffoonery to overcome. Peruta has also been cited in at least another circuit(s) (notably the DC circuit in Palmer) and on cases in other jurisdictions under the 9th, so overturning Peruta would create ripples outside of CA and the 9th.
We will have to see, but methinks the cat is amongst the pigeons now...
21 days. Now there is a hard timeline.