« Colt files Chapter 11 bankruptcy | Main | Peruta after action appraisal »
Peruta v. San Diego argument today
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
There is no use in trying to read tea leaves in who will get cert. Its just a huge waste of time and effort.
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.
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.
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.
Can someone in the know weigh in with an analysis of how well each side did?
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.