En banc Decision in Peruta -- a loss

shacklefordbanks · Jun 9, 2016

From Associated Press:

The New York-based gun control organization Everytown called it “a major victory for public safety.”

California Attorney General Kamala Harris called the ruling “a victory for public safety and sensible gun safety laws.”

Elliotte · Jun 9, 2016

shacklefordbanks said:
This was an En Banc ruling. 7-4.

I know that; however, according to the 9th Circuit's rules on their website: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/rules/rules.htm

Circuit Rule 35-3. Limited En Banc Court
The en banc court, for each case or group of related cases taken en banc, shall consist of the Chief Judge of this circuit and 10 additional judges to be drawn by lot from the active judges of the Court. In the absence of the Chief Judge, an 11th active judge shall be drawn by lot, and the most senior active judge on the panel shall preside. (Rev. 1/1/06, 7/1/07)
The drawing of the en banc court will be performed by the Clerk or a deputy clerk of the Court in the presence of at least one judge and shall take place on the first working day following the date of the order taking the case or group of related cases en banc.
If a judge whose name is drawn for a particular en banc court is disqualified, recused, or knows that he or she will be unable to sit at the time and place designated for the en banc case or cases, the judge will immediately notify the Chief Judge who will direct the Clerk to draw a replacement judge by lot. (Rev. 1/1/06)
In appropriate cases, the Court may order a rehearing by the full court following a hearing or rehearing en banc.

IANAL, but that reads to me that there is the potential, however slim, of having the whole court rehear it.

Maestro Pistolero · Jun 9, 2016

Elliotte said:
I know that; however, according to the 9th Circuit's rules on their website: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/rules/rules.htm

IANAL, but that reads to me that there is the potential, however slim, of having the whole court rehear it.

Good catch. But do you care to venture a guess on how many times an en banc decision has been revisited by the entire court in the 9th circuit . . . . or ANY circuit court of appeals?

AKbythebay · Jun 9, 2016

I'm finally coming to the realization that the only way I will ever be able to legally concealed carry will be to move to another state. First I was excited when Hogan was elected. We see how that worked out. Then I got excited over this court case since it seemed tailor made to strike down Maryland's G&S law. Now there's nothing left. Awful... :sad20:

Kharn · Jun 9, 2016

Maestro Pistolero said:
Good catch. But do you care to venture a guess on how many times an en banc decision has been revisited by the entire court in the 9th circuit . . . . or ANY circuit court of appeals?

Doesn't matter, the key for Peruta is delay, delay, delay in hope of Trump winning, Rs retaining the Senate and confirming a Justice next Spring, in time for that Justice to be the tie breaking vote.

shacklefordbanks · Jun 9, 2016

swinokur said:
Yep, Charles Nichols comes across as kind of arrogant and with a good sized helping of hubris. He criticizes Gura over on OCDO all the time

What now Charlie?

I guess he's too busy to notice while busy adding his two cents to the Wrenn and Grace cases. I'm sure he will let them know how wrong everyone is and why they should lose their cases against DC.

If I where him, I'd be more worried about his case.

iH8DemLibz · Jun 9, 2016

The court is, conveniently, reading the 2A for what it is. Primarily, as a means of protecting us from our own government. In their eyes, private citizens who may harm us are not the government. Therefore we can't protect ourselves against them.

The judicial system is wasting no time in using Justice Scalia's, suspicious, passing against us.

There is no way this won't end up at SCOTUS. Only four justices needed to hear the case. Then the same four justices will uphold the ruling.

Webephucked!

.02

fightinbluhen51 · Jun 9, 2016

HaveBlue said:
My question will make it obvious that I am not a lawyer or legal scholar.....

Where does the Constitution define a class of citizens called "the general public"? (I guess that sounds less condescending than "unwashed masses") .

Logically, wouldn't a CCW permit holder, necessarily, no longer be a member of "the general public" group by the fact that they have such a permit?

Maybe I'm being obtuse. What they probably meant was that "general public" is anyone who doesn't work for or on behalf of the government.

~~Not sure if you have been answered but, the~~

EDIT:

I read this wrong initially! You're right. I checked the below, and I don't see anything about "general public" or any carve outs for other classes of citizens that exempt themselves from the law.

Equal Protection, Titles of Nobility Clause, and Due Process found in the 5 & 14A.

press1280 · Jun 9, 2016

HaveBlue said:
My question will make it obvious that I am not a lawyer or legal scholar.....

Where does the Constitution define a class of citizens called "the general public"? (I guess that sounds less condescending than "unwashed masses") .

Logically, wouldn't a CCW permit holder, necessarily, no longer be a member of "the general public" group by the fact that they have such a permit?

Maybe I'm being obtuse. What they probably meant was that "general public" is anyone who doesn't work for or on behalf of the government.[/QUOTE]

I'd agree with this. But that also brings up something else. Why would the opinion use the words "general public", why not simply say no right to CCW? Almost seems like they're trying to leave wiggle room so the opinion (and coming open carry opinion after Nichols) won't be interpreted as 2A is a homebound right because they want to avoid a split.

MikeTF · Jun 9, 2016

Activist Judges.

Engine4 · Jun 9, 2016

rockstarr said:
the ammo box is coming soon my brothers and sisters

Revolution is nigh!

Gambler · Jun 9, 2016

I truly wonder if they'll ever have the stones to try and repeal the 2nd amendment.

Peaceful John · Jun 9, 2016

Not to be too panglossian, but the 9th CA seems to have concluded that the enumerated Right is to openly carry. The Supreme Court, in Caetano, had the opportunity to address open carry and conspicuously avoided comment. With Peruta we now have two decisions from serious levels of the judiciary that should be interpreted through the lens of "the dog that didn't bark".

Personally, I would much prefer open carry to concealed only. If "bear" means "openly", then the carry of weapons becomes a nationwide right not subject to California, or Maryland, or D.C., or New York concealed carry restrictions.

Additionally, there are weaknesses to concealed only (unintended exposure, printing) that would not trouble open carry. And, as others have written, if we once have a Right to open carry, concealed carry will happen before lunch.

Altogether it's early days, yet I like to think Peruta is probably a remarkably good, but back-handed, decision for us.

fred333 · Jun 9, 2016

fightinbluhen51 said:
I read this wrong initially! You're right. I checked the below, and I don't see anything about "general public" or any carve outs for other classes of citizens that exempt themselves from the law.

Equal Protection, Titles of Nobility Clause, and Due Process found in the 5 & 14A.

Stepping out further....the Constitution begins with "We the People..." and I doubt that phrase appeared by sheer happenstance.

Importantly, the phrase "the people" appears in several other constitutional clauses, five of which are in the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment ensures "the right of the people" to petition the government and to assemble peacefully; the Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms"; the Fourth Amendment protects "the right of the people" against unreasonable searches and seizures; and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments reserve to "the people" non-enumerated rights and powers, respectively.

But all of this is academic because the government is now under the control of Marxists who see the Constitution as a mere speed-bump on the road to their socialist utopia.

aray · Jun 9, 2016

fred333 said:
G&S for free speech is coming..[no sarcasm]

Already here: "hate speech" crimes, "safe zones", folks in a tizzy over sidewalk chalk, etc. Today a writer in the Huffington Post said violence was A-OK against Trump supporters. It will only get worse.

Inside the heart of every liberal is a totalitarian screaming to get out.

Kharn said:
Doesn't matter, the key for Peruta is delay, delay, delay in hope of Trump winning, Rs retaining the Senate and confirming a Justice next Spring, in time for that Justice to be the tie breaking vote.

Elections have consequences, and many MDS members don't seem to realize that, getting their shorts in a wad and staying home because Trump or Hogan or anyone else isn't pure enough for them. Just shoot us all in the foot I guess...

Muleskinner · Jun 9, 2016

rockstarr said:
the ammo box is coming soon my brothers and sisters

Next stop the 8 justice supreme Court which will reach a tie...meaning the ruling stands...buckle up we are in for a bumpy ride...

JPG · Jun 9, 2016

Another reason to vote FOR Trump, because you know Hillary WILL nominate someone that will be the 5th anti 2A vote.

Campfire · Jun 9, 2016

Maestro Pistolero said:
Even if we did rewrite the amendment via a convention of the states or whatever, what possible language might it contain that could be more unequivocal than "shall not be infringed"?

If the courts can eviscerate that language by interpretation there are no bounds to what they may do. They have substituted their opinion for that of the founders and those who ratified the BOR in the first place.

Unfortunately, Heller gave them plenty to work with vis a vi concealed carry.

...shall not be infringed and we really mean it?

sigh

jcutonilli · Jun 9, 2016

Muleskinner said:
Next stop the 8 justice supreme Court which will reach a tie...meaning the ruling stands...buckle up we are in for a bumpy ride...

Given that the court sustained the law, it is unlikely that the court will even grant cert. It is just like Heller II, Friedman, Jackson, Woollard, Drake or any of the multitude of other cases SCOTUS has declined to grant cert.

foxtrapper · Jun 9, 2016

So, when are we going to start our PA etc colonies/communes of gun owners? I'm so sick of this crap.

En banc Decision in Peruta -- a loss

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

When All Else Fails.

"Quack Pot Call Honker"

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Curmudgeon

¿Got Freedom?

Active Member

Banned

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics