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

« Colt files Chapter 11 bankruptcy | Main | Peruta after action appraisal »

Peruta v. San Diego argument today

Posted by David Hardy · 16 June 2015 09:11 AM

Streaming video should be here. It's set to start at 3:30 Pacific, 6:30 Eastern.

California had a system where handgun carry licenses are "may issue," and that extends to all carrying, not just concealed. A three judge panel struck that down, finding that a government cannot entirely prohibit unauthorized carry and also make the permit system "shall issue." There was a motion for review en banc, which was granted, hence this argument. (In theory, en banc means by all the judges of the Circuit; the Ninth is so large -- 28 active judges, last I counted -- that it sets them before a panel of the chief judge and ten randomly selected judges).

I worded that in the passive voice, because of another quirk. The defendants did not move for review en banc, but announced they would start issuing permits on a "shall issue" basis. The State of California had, early in the case, been notified, but refused to intervene. Now, with the original defendants dropping out, it filed a motion to intervene so as to file a motion for rehearing en banc. I don't think the court has ever acted on that. I assume the California AG's office will argue for the other side -- which means the court will hear argument from an attorney without it ever having been determined whether their client is a party to the appeal!

6 Comments | Leave a comment

Brett | June 16, 2015 9:26 AM | Reply

Thank you for your blog which I check up on almost daily. cA resident here, in Orange county whose sheriff issued several thousand CCW under the "Peruta standard" (good cause = self defense). It's prettymuch s foregone conclusion that the 9th will rule against us, taking a narrow view (eg ignoring the fact open carry is also banned so "bear" is de facto banned). The real question is...

Will SCOTUS grant cert? Mr hardy I'd like to see you write an opinion that compares & contrasts Peruta and Drake (which as you know was denied cert) in terms of reading the tea leaves in a cert grant.

Jim | June 16, 2015 11:55 AM | Reply

There is no use in trying to read tea leaves in who will get cert. Its just a huge waste of time and effort.

Jim D. | June 16, 2015 2:49 PM | Reply

Or, this could all be an attempt Jim Crow-style to kick the decision down the road as long as possible or until a favorable majority asserts itself on the SCOTUS.

How can the Court of Appeals act to review at the request of someone who is not a party to the lawsuit? It will take time to rule, then it will take time to appeal to SCOTUS, then it will take time for the SCOTUS to rule and the SCOTUS will most likely refuse to hear it and send it back to the Appeals Court for a re-hearing and determination that the CA Attorney General is/is not a party, which will take time to rule ... and on and on.

rd | June 16, 2015 7:34 PM | Reply

The sad part is that a constitutional right, from the Bill of Rights will likely be determined by who appoints the next one or two US Supreme Court Justices.

denton | June 16, 2015 10:13 PM | Reply

Barack Obama is unlikely to succeed at seating a new anti-2A Supreme Court Justice. Given the present state of affairs, I think the Senate is likely to block any such nomination. Obama's time is about up.

Jeff | June 17, 2015 7:51 AM | Reply

Can someone in the know weigh in with an analysis of how well each side did?

Leave a comment