Peruta v. County of San Diego (CCW Case)

DC-W · Jan 8, 2015

Inigoes said:
One month down, one month to go

Two weeks x 2

Jerzee Transplant · Jan 8, 2015

Inigoes said:
One month down, one month to go

esqappellate said:
The order states that the parties have 21 days to file briefs on whether the case should be reheard en banc. Under the 9th circuit general order, once the briefs are in, the active judges have 21 days to exchange memos among themselves. The en banc coordinator then calls for a vote and the judges on the court have 14 days to cast a vote. A failure to vote is deemed a "no" vote. So it is 21 + 21 + 14 which equals 56. Roughly two months for a decision on whether to grant rehearing en banc (not two weeks)

So...

Was the order date we are referring to Dec 03?

If so, the outside decision date is Jan 28?

(or to put it another way, the infamous "2 weeks" watch starts on Jan 14? )

ryan_j · Jan 8, 2015

krucam said:
The Hawaii one was typical "Bood in the Streets" rhetoric that has no basis in reality. One only has to look at the 43 (?) states allowing licensed carry. Texas has evaluated licensed CHL carriers, finding license holders being more lawful than the population at large.
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/reports/convrates.htm

SAF/Gura & Calguns Foundation (Richards case) submitted an Amicus as well opposing the rehearing en Banc of Peruta. Gura brings up some very good arguments as to why Peruta may not be the best vehicle for CA9 and/or SCOTUS, given the original defendant (Sheriff Gore) is no longer involved. AG Harris or the Brady's would pollute Peruta going forth.

This leaves Richard as the remaining pure case, he says...and it more directly impacts CA State Statute (vs Sheriffs execution).

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...Curiae-in-Opposition-to-Rehearing-En-Banc.pdf

Tejas actually has a pretty decent curriculum. They teach you safety, where you can and can't carry, rules and laws but also non violent conflict resolution.

Inigoes · Jan 8, 2015

Jerzee Transplant said:
So...

Was the order date we are referring to Dec 03?

If so, the outside decision date is Jan 28?

(or to put it another way, the infamous "2 weeks" watch starts on Jan 14? )

To lower expectations, look at the first or second week in February.

Jerzee Transplant · Jan 8, 2015

danb · Jan 8, 2015

Well, maybe. The 56 days assumes no one writes a dissenting opinion. If the court decides to issue an opinion (e.g. a dissent from denial of en banc***) along with a decision, it will take longer.... by about another 2 weeks.

***or a sternly worded dissent from the granting of en banc that gets SCT attention.

press1280 · Jan 8, 2015

danb said:
Well, maybe. The 56 days assumes no one writes a dissenting opinion. If the court decides to issue an opinion (e.g. a dissent from denial of en banc***) along with a decision, it will take longer.... by about another 2 weeks.

***or a sternly worded dissent from the granting of en banc that gets SCT attention.

If en banc is denied but there are dissenting opinions, would the 9th wait until the dissents are finished considering the original ruling in essence struck down a law?

Kharn · Jan 8, 2015

press1280 said:
If en banc is denied but there are dissenting opinions, would the 9th wait until the dissents are finished considering the original ruling in essence struck down a law?

Yes.

MDFF2008 · Jan 8, 2015

I would think whoever looses is going to have a lot to say.

esqappellate · Jan 8, 2015

press1280 said:
If en banc is denied but there are dissenting opinions, would the 9th wait until the dissents are finished considering the original ruling in essence struck down a law?

Yes

danb · Jan 28, 2015

esqappellate said:
The order states that the parties have 21 days to file briefs on whether the case should be reheard en banc. Under the 9th circuit general order, once the briefs are in, the active judges have 21 days to exchange memos among themselves. The en banc coordinator then calls for a vote and the judges on the court have 14 days to cast a vote. A failure to vote is deemed a "no" vote. So it is 21 + 21 + 14 which equals 56. Roughly two months for a decision on whether to grant rehearing en banc (not two weeks)

Today would be the magic day by which the panel has to vote. Briefs by active judges would have been due the 14th of Jan.

Two more weeks... I guess it depends on whether there are any dissents to write.

MDFF2008 · Jan 28, 2015

I can't imagine in a case of this magnitude, there wouldn't be dissents.

Inigoes · Jan 28, 2015

gprimr1 said:
I can't imagine in a case of this magnitude, there wouldn't be dissents.

Looking a the 2A case tracker:

http://michellawyers.com/second-amendment-litigation-case-tracker/

A bunch of cases have been stayed, pending the outcome of Peruta

Jerzee Transplant · Jan 28, 2015

So...

It's a yea or nea vote (non-votes are a default no). And then the majority and minority side get to put out an opinion/ dissent?

If I'm correct, when SCOTUS decides to take/ not take a case, no opinion/ dissent is given... would this not be similar?

esqappellate · Jan 28, 2015

Jerzee Transplant said:
So...

It's a yea or nea vote (non-votes are a default no). And then the majority and minority side get to put out an opinion/ dissent?

If I'm correct, when SCOTUS decides to take/ not take a case, no opinion/ dissent is given... would this not be similar?

No, dissents from a refusal to grant rehearing en banc are actually quite common, especially in the Ninth Circuit. There is no majority opinion explaining a decision to grant rehearing en banc, as there is no reason to issue an opinion for that. So we are just talking about dissents from a refusal to grant. If the court were to refuse to grant en banc, I agree that there will likely be at least one dissent. and maybe more.

BTW, on occasion, you will get dissents from a decision by the SCT not to grant cert in a given case.

danb · Jan 28, 2015

esqappellate said:
No, dissents from a refusal to grant rehearing en banc are actually quite common, especially in the Ninth Circuit. There is no majority opinion explaining a decision to grant rehearing en banc, as there is no reason to issue an opinion for that. So we are just talking about dissents from a refusal to grant. If the court were to refuse to grant en banc, I agree that there will likely be at least one dissent. and maybe more.

BTW, on occasion, you will get dissents from a decision by the SCT not to grant cert in a given case.

refusal to grant... dissent. grant... no dissent.

So, the longer we go not hearing anything, the more likely no grant.

esqappellate · Jan 28, 2015

danb said:
refusal to grant... dissent. grant... no dissent.

So, the longer we go not hearing anything, the more likely no grant.

I think that is right. So if there is no order granting rehearing en banc soon after the expiration of all the time periods for briefs to be filed and for judges to vote, then it is likely that there will be no grant. There might still be dissents from the decision NOT to grant. On occasion the panel majority will write something in response to a dissent from a refusal to grant rehearing en banc. And that, of course, takes still more time. But there won't be any opinion explaining a decision TO grant rehearing. That's pointless. Nor will there be any dissenting opinion from the decision TO grant. Typically, granting en banc is one line. That order might also order additional briefing and might even set an argument date. But no one dissents just from a decision to grant.

What is interesting here is what the Court will do with the rehearing en banc petition from the Cal. AG. Denying en banc AND intervention for her ends the case, as there is no one left to petition the SCT.

Jerzee Transplant · Jan 28, 2015

Thanks.

As always, we really appreciate the explanations of the law and it's procedures from those with J.D.s

Maestro Pistolero · Jan 28, 2015

esqappellate said:
What is interesting here is what the Court will do with the rehearing en banc petition from the Cal. AG. Denying en banc AND intervention for her ends the case, as there is no one left to petition the SCT.

. . . and then any appeal of Peruta would have to come circuitously through Baker or Richards, both of which said essentially: "See Peruta". That seems really awkward and strange.

Re: The CA AG's Intervention and en banc request(s):
It's hard to imagine any scenario whatsoever in which a non-governmental party would be allowed to intervene so long after judgment . . . as would be the case with Kamala Harris in Peruta.

If she is let in, it would seem to demonstrate a fundamental flawed imbalance and unfairness in the form of unbridled judicial acquiescence to the whims of a state government run amok. Aren't the parties supposed to be on equal footing?

On what legal basis should the Government have such an unfair advantage?

To me, the 9th would do better to deny intervention and take the case en banc sue sponte. Although it would still be outrageous given the ruling's solid adherence to Heller, at least it is their unquestionable right to do so.

IANAL, obviously.

Kharn · Jan 28, 2015

Esq,
There have been opinions/notes/statements (not sure of the right term?) released in the 9th in support of an en banc grant, by judges hedging their bet of not ending up on the panel but wanting their opinion publicly known. But they are rare.

Peruta v. County of San Diego (CCW Case)

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Member

Ultimate Member

Head'n for the hills

Member

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

President, MSI

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

Head'n for the hills

Member

President, MSI

dont be a dumbass

President, MSI

Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics