En banc Decision in Peruta -- a loss

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?

Click to expand...

kcbrown said:

This is why you need mechanism, not words, to change things properly.

The only way to prevent the government from trampling upon the rights of minority populations ("minority" here merely means "less that 50% of the population", and has nothing to do with race or any of that) is to embed into the Constitution a direct capability for minority populations to overturn laws that would trample upon them.

Click to expand...

shacklefordbanks said:

Charles is screwed too. The 9th Circuit clearly said it does not matter what manner of carry there is, open or concealed, the government can regulate that carry outside the home any way they want to other than a total ban. So even if you win open carry, you lose because they will require a "good cause" for you to get a permit to do so from the government.

So the legal eagles need to come up with better arguments because this line of arguments will get most guns banned and nobody will be able to leave their house with them. We need a strong argument for keeping and bearing any arm we can bear WITHOUT any government permission whatsoever. Otherwise, we get this crap from the courts stuffed with Clinton and now Obama judges.

Click to expand...

In settled case law pertaining to the filming of police officers and other public officials in public places, many citizens were charged in violation of "wire taping laws." While there is no expectation of privacy in public and no right to privacy in the Constitution, the coverage of those laws was both outside the scope of the free press protections affording in the First Amendment. Further, it was outside the intentions of the general law used to make the charge. To force someone to have press credentials to operate a camera in a public space, smacks of the natural rights that are protected to The People, whom employee their leaders and public servants.

If a known citizen A were to have witnessed a horrific, wrongful police involved arrested, yet lacked a cell phone camera to record the video, would that person be disbarred from writing an op-ed in their local paper, simply because they lack "good and substantial" reason to be issued press credentials? Or, what about the entrepreneurial photographer whom is trying to build his first website with content procured in public without 'consent'? He does not work for any institution (NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, Fox). He does not work in assumed risk position (White House Correspondent, War Correspondent, Documentary Filmmaker covering civil unrest), even though he may carry tens of thousands of dollars worth of photo and videographical equipment. His content is not published in print, only on the web, thus the legacy media has no bearing upon the 'newly invented distribution method.' No one can, nor will issue him a "press credential" to allow him greater access to the Time, Places, and Manners of generating his content. If this citizen is to become successful, is he required to film and depict all of his ideas, stories in the confines of his Hollywood basement using a green screen and public domain footage?

So too is it here. To disbar one from the ability to exercise their right which is codified and defined, inclusive of bear, yet limited to the confines of one's property lines, not only borders along insanity, but runs afoul of the legislative intent. The legislative intent of "just cause" requirements are routed in response to acts of civil disobedience by radical operators, freedmen, and racial segregation (cite). Forcing citizens of "good moral standing" to provide their own "just cause" for permission of a guaranteed and fundamental right should be considered absurd. When the law fails to define what the requirement is, there is absolutely no basis for what legal justification can be used to deny an applicant.

If the photo journalist had to apply for a press credential to the White House, what are the chances that she or he could be provided the proper documentation to cover the President's major press conference on Iran? Lacking that "permit" does that then preclude them from ever carrying a camera in public in Yellowstone park?

Click to expand...

fishertodd said:

Jury nullification anyone? But I know the unfortunate reality of the situation, even among the most vocal members of our gun rights-touting community. I am referring to those who decry their loss of freedoms and then look for every opportunity and excuse to avoid this most important area of civic responsibility. Just consider that if every jury panel had at least one Second Amendment supporter on it, all laws that impose restrictions on the Second Amendment (or any other right for that matter) would become essentially null and void. (Actually, any law which violates the Constitution is null and void from the moment of its passage; however, this is a philosophical detail that does not detract from the point I am trying to make). Don't gun owners comprise at least 10 percent of the population?

Click to expand...

Elliotte said:

Oh I realize the chances of it happening are smaller than the chances of the Obama Justice Department indicting Hillary over her numerous crimes, but it is still one more step in the process.

And I think this step is unique to the 9th Circuit since all the other circuits do a full-court for every en banc, but the 9th only does 11 judge panels instead of the full 29 judge court.

Click to expand...

esqappellate said:

That's correct, but Local Rule 35-3 also provides that "In appropriate cases, the Court may order a rehearing by the full court following a hearing or rehearing en banc." That said, I don't recall that the 9th has *ever* had rehearing en banc by the full court since they started using en banc panels. But, I haven't researched it, so it may have happened. It would be a very big deal, if they did.

Click to expand...

JPG said:

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

Click to expand...

danb said:

This case has two things going for it: Guns, and the allowance of the last minute deux-ex-machina intervention by Harris after she declined to intervene earlier.

I am hoping against all hope there is the possibility that the SCT takes up the case on this narrow ground alone (intervention) and smacks them down for allowing this.

Click to expand...

esqappellate said:

No chance of that, sorry. Plaintiffs would be nuts to seek cert on that ground, as it wouldn't make any difference in the judgment.

Click to expand...

aquaman said:

Nothing will really change until there is massive civil disobedience. And that won't happen because conservative types don't rally and organize like the leftist

Click to expand...

Master_P said:

New strategy - Lose cases to win gun rights.

Step 1 - Facial challenges to OC bans in each shall-issue CCW state (IL, SC, FL). Each plaintiff must have a CCW, but wants to OC because, "that's the protected right" to bear arms outside the home.

Step 2 - Ask the court to strike down the state OC ban.

Courts loathe to invalidate state legislation. Hence there are three possible outcomes the court is inclined to offer:

a) OC is the protected 2A right. This is an outright win. CCW is not affected.

b) The state may ban OC and not infringe the Plaintiffs right to bear arms because ***the state already gave them a CCW***.

Isn't this what really we want? We lose the case, but get case law to challenge may-issue states like CA and NJ, where no manner of carry is available.

c) There is no right to bear arms whatsoever outside the home. This is a total loss, and not likely since most courts have held that you have some type of right to bear arms outside the home.

Two out of three isn't bad... oh and look! Each of those three states sits in a different Federal appellate district!

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

wolfwood said:

So what happens in my case Baker? We asked for a permit to carry either concealed or open. The panel opinion acknowledged that in it opinion. However, my opinion just see peruta the lower court erred. Does it get reheard? If so what is the time table for something like that. Peruta is not binding on the open carry issue so I am a little unclear on that.

Click to expand...

esqappellate said:

Very good question. Your case, as I understand it, expressly challenged both the open carry ban and the concealed carry ban. So, as to the first, its a live case. So, did the state seek rehearing? I can't remember.

Click to expand...

DC-W said:

Elections have consequences...

Click to expand...

esqappellate said:

That's correct, but Local Rule 35-3 also provides that "In appropriate cases, the Court may order a rehearing by the full court following a hearing or rehearing en banc." That said, I don't recall that the 9th has *ever* had rehearing en banc by the full court since they started using en banc panels. But, I haven't researched it, so it may have happened. It would be a very big deal, if they did.

Click to expand...