I would prefer the CA9 not get another bite at the apple. The SCOTUS needs to slap the CA9 down with a Per Curiam and call it a day.
En banc Decision in Peruta -- a loss
- Thread starter esqappellate
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
I would prefer the CA9 not get another bite at the apple. The SCOTUS needs to slap the CA9 down with a Per Curiam and call it a day.
danb
dont be a dumbass
They won't issue a PC in this on 2nd Amendment grounds.
If they vacate the en banc on standing, there is no one to appeal, ergo the 3 judge opinion is reinstated. That itself is quite a slap. Might not get 5 on guns, but I can see 9 on standing.
They will get another bite in Baker, which is about both open and concealed, and it will be harder for the 9th to play games.
And if that is indeed the case and the appeals ruling by the 3 judges stand then can we use this in our battle here in MD?
danb
dont be a dumbass
Nope.
Kharn
Ultimate Member
CA would enjoy shall issue, but we would have to wait for DC (Wrenn?), or HI (Baker) to reach the SC.
esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
The state intervened as a party defendant, not as a plaintiff. Plaintiffs need standing to sue, not defendants.
- Aug 29, 2016
- 763
Are you sure about that? If the en banc decision is vacated, I wouldn't think the panel would be reinstated.
By vacating the en banc opinion that essentially turns the clock back to right after the 3 judge panel's rebuke of the state's intervention. Problem is the other sheriff in the companion case could get en banc and we get the same result with more wasted time.
If the En Banc was vacated, wouldn't the new en banc panel have to deal with the decision vacating the en banc? Like if SCOTUS says the Peruta En Banc was wrong, you can't use that logic on the Baker En Banc.
I suppose they could say "FU" to the Supreme Court, but would they do something that unprofessional?
danb
dont be a dumbass
Whether "wasted time" is a problem or a feature depends on perspective.
I believe they would out of spite or they have gone so far left their is no way for them to come back.
And the only one that gets it.
I'm referring to the hypothetical that SCOTUS kicks this back to CA9 based solely on the state's intervention.
If they kick it back based on something else, then all bets are off.
And I was referring to the Richards case, not Baker. I'm not sure Baker is even viable anymore, I thought the plaintiff left the state?
I suppose if you're counting on a justice to keel over or retire, it would be a feature.
Amy Howe at SCOTUSblog suggested that there won't be any retirements this year. Stevens has hired more clerks and justices historically announce their retirement sooner than this late in the term.
She also posted that she doesn't believe at all there will be any voluntary retirement of Ginsburg so long as Trump is president.
She also posted that she doesn't believe at all there will be any voluntary retirement of Ginsburg so long as Trump is president.
jcutonilli
Ultimate Member
- Mar 28, 2013
- 2,474
People should read the wiki on vacating judgment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacated_judgment pay special attention to what the 7th circuit has said on the subject
The lower courts do not always follow the lead of SCOTUS. Look at the example in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GVR_order They will likely get reversed by the higher court however.
Kharn
Ultimate Member
O'Connor announced her retirement on 1 July 2005, effective the confirmation of her replacement.
danb
dont be a dumbass
Maybe. To accept CA I think I have to accept that the whole CA statutory scheme was somehow invalidated, which it wasn't. Just a particular county-level policy was invalidated. Many other counties do not have the same policy. Plus, CA waited until the last possible second to participate- CA did not even file amicus briefs earlier. Clement's brief, the cases he cites, and the 3-judge denial of intervention seem to have the better of this argument.
Intervention was not really argued or analyzed very strongly because everyone wanted this to go to en banc and eventually to the Supreme Court. The en banc opinion is basically results oriented "If we don't allow intervention, there is no party in the case, we cannot hear this case and shoot this down."
I think SCT will look hard at the precedent that allowing this last-minute intervention sets. Maybe the 9th did the right thing allowing CA in at the last minute, but for the wrong reasons. With this group of 9 on the Supreme Court, I will not bet against them kicking this back to force the 9th to button up their reasoning for allowing CA in at the last minute.
On the other hand, Richards (consolidated with Peruta) is still a live case. Definitely anything goes here.
Intervention was appropriate and Richards pretty much asks the same thing as Peruta,...A license to carry a concealed firearm, which has no 2nd Amendment protection.
Peruta v City of San Diego
9th Circuit Court En Banc
Pg 47
"Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), a party may intervene as of right if
(1) it has a significant protectable interest relating to the subject of the action; (2) the disposition of the action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede its ability to protect its interest; (3) the application is timely; and (4) the exiting parties may not adequately represent its interest."
"If we do not permit California to intervene as a party in Peruta, there is no party in that case that can fully represent its interests. At trial and on appeal, attorneys representing Sheriff Gore ably defended San Diego County's interpretation of the good cause requirement. But after the panel decision was issued, Sheriff Gore informed the court that he would neither petition for rehearing en banc nor defend the county's position in en banc proceedings. California then appropriately sought to intervene in order to fill the void created by the late and unexpected departure of Sheriff Gore from the litigation."
Adam Richards,et al.,
Plaintiff-Appellants,
vs
Ed Prieto;County of Yolo,
Defendants-Appellees.
Response To Petition For Full Court Rehearing En Banc
"Unquestionably, all Plaintiffs consistently argued the legal theory that a lack of open carry ability under state law spawns a right to concealed carry . But the Richards Plaintiffs also argued that concealed carry directly falls within the Second Amendment. More importantly, and irrespective of what arguments their attorneys advanced, because: (a) no plaintiff in Richards or Peruta either was arrested for openly carrying a firearm in public or (b) facially challenged the constitutionality of California's statutory restrictions on open carry; and (c) sheriffs in Yolo and San Diego counties lack statutory authority to grant exceptions from open carry restrictions; Plaintiffs' suits necessarily limited themselves to whether the Second Amendment compelled issuance of a concealed carry permit."
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
-
-
-
Montgomery County Gun Buyback: Interfaith GVP Network Aims to Hit $30,000 Goal by April 20 (1 Viewer)
- Latest: klutch
-
