CA denied intervention in Peruta!

[Patrick]

Great news.

The CA Legislature is going to have a field day getting around this one...

 

[Kharn]

I wouldn't want to be Kamela Harris' cat tonight. Poor kitty might just get kicked into the wall.

 

[br3krj]

So, how quickly do we hear something on Baker?

 

[Inigoes]

So, how quickly do we hear something on Baker?

As quick as wolfwood sends off the 28j letter, stating Peruta is now settled law.

 

[Afield]

Wait...did the dissenting judge really cite a dissent from another case in his dissent, as if it were gospel?

Didn't CA early on stay out of this when they could have intervened from the beginning?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MDFF2008]

Wait...did the dissenting judge really cite a dissent from another case in his dissent, as if it were gospel?

Didn't CA early on stay out of this when they could have intervened from the beginning?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's why they got denied. They never conceived in the darkest thoughts that SD would loose, so they didn't want to waste time and energy.

 

[Kharn]

IIRC the AG requested to be, and was, released from one of the current cases? I thought it was Richards, but might have been a Birdt case.

 

[BeoBill]

Wow! Somebody pinch me! And we tied the Brady Bunches tail in a knot too!

 

[OrbitalEllipses]

It's a sad day when CA has better CCW laws than MD; however, it is a bright day for CA.

 

[br3krj]

It's a sad day when CA has better CCW laws than MD; however, it is a bright day for CA.

Couldn't agree more. If you had told me 3 years ago I would prefer the gun laws in Illinois and California more than Maryland, I would have thought you were crazy!

 

[Patrick]

I expect Hawaii will appeal and/or request en banc in Baker.

Oddly, though, time is on our side. Let's say HI asks for - and gets - their en banc review. They could ask the 9th to stay Baker in Hawaii, and the 9th could do it. But that stay would not extend to CA.

That means CA is shall-issue during the en banc review, or while the case is being appealed to SCOTUS.

An issue in CA is the wait times. They do individual interviews and there is no deadline. Some people are on the list a year out from now. That is the next lawsuit, I suspect.

 

[Mr H]

Wait...did the dissenting judge really cite a dissent from another case in his dissent, as if it were gospel?

I read it as, "Nyuh-unh... What HE said!!!"

 

[kcbrown]

I expect Hawaii will appeal and/or request en banc in Baker.

Oddly, though, time is on our side. Let's say HI asks for - and gets - their en banc review. They could ask the 9th to stay Baker in Hawaii, and the 9th could do it. But that stay would not extend to CA.

But Richards already has an existing en banc petition, so there's every reason to believe that an en banc review will occur before, or shortly after, HI asks for en banc review.

That means CA is shall-issue during the en banc review, or while the case is being appealed to SCOTUS.

But even if HI asks for and gets en banc review, it does not follow that CA will be shall-issue during that period of time.

"Shall issue" in California exists only to the degree that the district courts are willing to act on their own to enforce Peruta. Since Baker basically says "see Peruta" (as does Richards), en banc review of Baker or Richards is the same as en banc review of Peruta. The district courts know this. If en banc review is granted to Baker or Richards, the district courts will stay all cases before them pending that case.

Indeed, I fully expect those courts to stay all such cases until Peruta, Richards, and Baker are completely disposed of, meaning that all opportunities for review are finished, even when the 9th Circuit has not yet granted en banc review.

So no, CA will most certainly not be "shall issue" during that period of time, as the only remedy for obstinance on the part of issuing authorities is to sue them, and those proceedings will be stayed by the district courts handling them until the mere possibility that Peruta could be overturned no longer exists. Only then will the district courts start enforcing Peruta, and thus only then will California actually be "shall issue".

 

[ericahls]

So no, CA will most certainly not be "shall issue" during that period of time, as the only remedy for obstinance on the part of issuing authorities is to sue them, and those proceedings will be stayed by the district courts handling them until the mere possibility that Peruta could be overturned no longer exists. Only then will the district courts start enforcing Peruta, and thus only then will California actually be "shall issue".

Every party has a pooper and your it

 

[csanc123]

Every party has a pooper and your it

Arggggh

You're.

 

[Southwest Chuck]

But Richards already has an existing en banc petition, so there's every reason to believe that an en banc review will occur before, or shortly after, HI asks for en banc review.


But even if HI asks for and gets en banc review, it does not follow that CA will be shall-issue during that period of time.

"Shall issue" in California exists only to the degree that the district courts are willing to act on their own to enforce Peruta. Since Baker basically says "see Peruta" (as does Richards), en banc review of Baker or Richards is the same as en banc review of Peruta. The district courts know this. If en banc review is granted to Baker or Richards, the district courts will stay all cases before them pending that case.


Indeed, I fully expect those courts to stay all such cases until Peruta, Richards, and Baker are completely disposed of, meaning that all opportunities for review are finished, even when the 9th Circuit has not yet granted en banc review.

So no, CA will most certainly not be "shall issue" during that period of time, as the only remedy for obstinance on the part of issuing authorities is to sue them, and those proceedings will be stayed by the district courts handling them until the mere possibility that Peruta could be overturned no longer exists. Only then will the district courts start enforcing Peruta, and thus only then will California actually be "shall issue".

If the Mandate Issues in 7 days, at least it will be in San Diego County unless they start playing games with the "Good Moral Character" requirement. Then again, Birdt's case against San Bernardino County is on top of that (so far).

 

[Afrikeber]

All this good news lately makes want to play the lotto which I normally do not do.

 

[kcbrown]

If the Mandate Issues in 7 days, at least it will be in San Diego County unless they start playing games with the "Good Moral Character" requirement. Then again, Birdt's case against San Bernardino County is on top of that (so far).

Yes, that much is definitely true.

That actually does raise the question: when will the mandate actually issue? Is that waiting for the 9th Circuit to issue an order to the district court?

 

[press1280]

But Richards already has an existing en banc petition, so there's every reason to believe that an en banc review will occur before, or shortly after, HI asks for en banc review.


But even if HI asks for and gets en banc review, it does not follow that CA will be shall-issue during that period of time.

"Shall issue" in California exists only to the degree that the district courts are willing to act on their own to enforce Peruta. Since Baker basically says "see Peruta" (as does Richards), en banc review of Baker or Richards is the same as en banc review of Peruta. The district courts know this. If en banc review is granted to Baker or Richards, the district courts will stay all cases before them pending that case.

Indeed, I fully expect those courts to stay all such cases until Peruta, Richards, and Baker are completely disposed of, meaning that all opportunities for review are finished, even when the 9th Circuit has not yet granted en banc review.

So no, CA will most certainly not be "shall issue" during that period of time, as the only remedy for obstinance on the part of issuing authorities is to sue them, and those proceedings will be stayed by the district courts handling them until the mere possibility that Peruta could be overturned no longer exists. Only then will the district courts start enforcing Peruta, and thus only then will California actually be "shall issue".

Unfortunately I have to agree. I see this as a small victory, which should clear Peruta, but the 9th could easily grant en banc in Richards and derail everything.

 

[esqappellate]

Yes, that much is definitely true.

That actually does raise the question: when will the mandate actually issue? Is that waiting for the 9th Circuit to issue an order to the district court?

See Rule 41 (b), FRAP. Mandate must issue "7 days after entry of an order denying a timely petition for panel rehearing, petition for rehearing en banc, or motion for a stay of mandate, which ever is later."