Peruta/Richards going en banc

[Peaceful John]

Someone will be along shortly to correct me, but I suspect Pertua/Richards will go down before the 9th but subsequently appealed and given cert by SCOTUS.

Peruta pretty much cut and pastes Heller. For SCOTUS to (a) decline cert or (b) rule against Peruta is too much like taking a second bite of the Heller apple and this time spitting it out.

 

[zenMonkey]

If a majority of the judges vote to rehear En Banc, it is probably because they didn't agree with the original ruling correct? This means that a majority of the judges already want to overturn the original ruling, and thus we already know that we lost just by the En Banc vote. Or is that not at all close to reality? How often does the the En Banc ruling confirm the original ruling? It seems just by the nature of the system that it would be rare.

 

[MDFF2008]

Yeah, the fix is in.

I think we can say at this point, the court is going to approve anything short of a total ban.

 

[esqappellate]

If a majority of the judges vote to rehear En Banc, it is probably because they didn't agree with the original ruling correct? This means that a majority of the judges already want to overturn the original ruling, and thus we already know that we lost just by the En Banc vote. Or is that not at all close to reality? How often does the the En Banc ruling confirm the original ruling? It seems just by the nature of the system that it would be rare.

No, at least, not quite. The vote is by all active judges, but the en banc panel is only 11 judges. It will thus turn on who the 11 are. THe en banc panel has not been announced.

 

[danb]

I guess there is no way to know what the vote was.

 

[Decoy]

Yeah, the fix is in.

I think we can say at this point, the court is going to approve anything short of a total ban.

yup

 

[zenMonkey]

No, at least, not quite. The vote is by all active judges, but the en banc panel is only 11 judges. It will thus turn on who the 11 are. THe en banc panel has not been announced.

Ah, gotcha. That makes sense. I'm still depressed, but at least I now know what's going on...

 

[rem87062597]

Someone will be along shortly to correct me, but I suspect Pertua/Richards will go down before the 9th but subsequently appealed and given cert by SCOTUS.

Peruta pretty much cut and pastes Heller. For SCOTUS to (a) decline cert or (b) rule against Peruta is too much like taking a second bite of the Heller apple and this time spitting it out.

I don't think SCOTUS will grant cert anytime soon, they've declined it too many times for this issue and I think that if they were going to do it they would have done it. My opinion is that none of the justices know if Kennedy has the balls to say that 2A extends outside of the home and both sides of the court don't want to risk setting precedent based on him. And our side doesn't want the decision watered down like they had to do to appease Kennedy in Heller.

 

[SRD]

Hey! You can't use two forum running jokes in one post. PENALTY!

That was funny.Is there a link in layman's speak or cliff notes on this? Serious question.

 

[Decoy]

California concealed gun ruling to be reconsidered

http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_27792746/california-concealed-gun-ruling-be-reconsidered

 

[OleCuss]

That was funny.Is there a link in layman's speak or cliff notes on this? Serious question.

The "Two Weeks" thing is from the Calguns forum.

IIRC, back when the Off-List Lowers were getting started there was an item which was supposed to occur in two weeks and the time frame kept getting extended.

So now on Calguns whenever anyone says "Two Weeks" it is implying that it should happen now but who really knows when the item/event/whatever will really happen. There's an emoticon for this as well.

It's now mostly a tiresome joke because it has been used so often.

 

[esqappellate]

I guess there is no way to know what the vote was.

we will never know

 

[JPG]

Link to Mr. Peruta's view about case (3/36/2015).

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=1054749

 

[SRD]

The "Two Weeks" thing is from the Calguns forum.

IIRC, back when the Off-List Lowers were getting started there was an item which was supposed to occur in two weeks and the time frame kept getting extended.

So now on Calguns whenever anyone says "Two Weeks" it is implying that it should happen now but who really knows when the item/event/whatever will really happen. There's an emoticon for this as well.

It's now mostly a tiresome joke because it has been used so often.

I know/get the 2 weeks/3% thing,was looking for a summarized/breakdown of the legal jargon for the " the big word challenged".

 

[rlc2]

More discussion at TTAG

A couple of insightful posters there- Daniel Z seems to have an insider perspective, and Mark N seem to have a good grasp of legal issues.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...ers-en-banc-review-of-peruta/#comment-2104032

 

[yellowfin]

Chief Thomas? What happened to Kozinski?

 

[kcbrown]

No, at least, not quite. The vote is by all active judges, but the en banc panel is only 11 judges. It will thus turn on who the 11 are. THe en banc panel has not been announced.

There's a roughly 4.3% (sorry, it's actually 2.8%. I'd forgotten that the chief judge gets to sit on the panel by default) chance that we draw a favorable panel, assuming all Democrat nominees vote against the right and that all the Republican nominees vote in favor of it. Given the 100% opposition to the right to arms on the part of Democrat nominees at the appellate level to date (at least that I've seen), that 4.3% chance is likely an upper bound.

Ignore these numbers at your "peril", but I predicted the case being taken en banc well in advance on the very same basis.


No, Peruta and Richards will almost certainly be overturned en banc.

 

[MDFF2008]

There's a roughly 4.3% chance that we draw a favorable panel, assuming all Democrat nominees vote against the right and that all the Republican nominees vote in favor of it. Given the 100% opposition to the right to arms on the part of Democrat nominees at the appellate level to date (at least that I've seen), that 4.3% chance is likely an upper bound.

Ignore these numbers at your "peril", but I predicted the case being taken en banc well in advance on the very same basis.


No, Peruta and Richards will almost certainly be overturned en banc.

My faith lasted a bit longer but I agree.

 

[randian]

Chief Thomas? What happened to Kozinski?

Kozinski got termed out. Also note that Thomas was the dissenter in Peruta, and the decision in that case was suspiciously delayed until Thomas could take over as Chief Justice during the en banc process.

 

[press1280]

If a majority of the judges vote to rehear En Banc, it is probably because they didn't agree with the original ruling correct? This means that a majority of the judges already want to overturn the original ruling, and thus we already know that we lost just by the En Banc vote. Or is that not at all close to reality? How often does the the En Banc ruling confirm the original ruling? It seems just by the nature of the system that it would be rare.

Yea, I'd say most of CA9 as demonstrated by this vote disagree with the original ruling. What remains to be seen is what the makeup of the panel will be (10 random judges plus Thomas), so we obviously still can win but the odds are not good.
However, there are other issues which could play in our favor. For one thing, a lot of Thomas' dissent focused on CCW not being protected. Perhaps they take the line similar to that of CA10 (OC is the right), although I doubt they go so far as to say that; maybe they just say that they are not ruling on legality of CA's OC ban but the CCW regs are permissible.
They could also take a hard line opinion and try to strictly confine to the home and split with Moore.
Or, it's just going to be an attempt to copy CA2-4 because they believe SCOTUS won't take it in that case.