9th Circuit - "Good Cause" Requirement Unconstitutional

[Laderbuilt]

More goodness from the 9th Circuit.

The Peruta panel strikes again.

Unable to view link. It says I must log in. Do you mind putting the jist here?

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Do you have a link that does not require a login?

Try this

 

[M1911]

That works, thanks.

That decision was short and sweet.

 

[Garden12]

I wonder if this voids Hawaii's requirement, that an applicant must provide a medical waiver allowing the police to view medical records.

 

[Quiet]

I wonder if this voids Hawaii's requirement, that an applicant must provide a medical waiver allowing the police to view medical records.

Best I can tell it sends a case that was looking for 2 preliminary injucntions back to the lower court with instructions to re-decide one of the requests in light of Peruta, but with a pat on the back for the other decision to deny.

I find myself agreeing with the dissent with regards to the preliminary injunction, so there must be something I'm missing.... did the original case continue on without a preliminary injunction, or did the loss of the preliminary injunctions stop the original case?

But as to your underlying question, I don't know if Peruta voids the look into medical records, since they'd presumably be looking for evidence of mental illness.

 

[bigblue]

I agree with your reading of the dissent. It was more thought out and reasoned more clearly. The majority opinion was more of just a "no, go screw" opinion.

 

[terraformer]

I agree with your reading of the dissent. It was more thought out and reasoned more clearly. The majority opinion was more of just a "no, go screw" opinion.

The reason why is the baker case is a nightmare. It's Heller II all over again. Lets litigate every perceived wrong in the system all at once. Baker's case is going to pollute the 9th circuit for years to come. But by remanding it back, the majority judges have delayed that event long enough to let reasonable cases to come up first. I suspect the majority two judges knew that, which is why the majority opinion is so short and says nothing other than go screw. There is no use for HI to appeal it since Prieto has already decided to appeal, they will just be able to wait out that, providing more delay.

But yes, the dissent was right there, but be thankful the majority did what they did.

 

[bigblue]

Both sides of the decision make more sense in light of those facts. Thanks.

 

[n1bsbri]

Do you have a link that does not require a login?

Try here:

BREAKING: Ninth Circuit Makes Hawaii a Shall-Issue State

 

[Garys]

I don't think that their headline is completely accurate. It was remanded for more proceedings, but I think that it's far from over.

Try here:

BREAKING: Ninth Circuit Makes Hawaii a Shall-Issue State

 

[browncoat]

The dissenting judge obviously thinks that the 9th will overturn Peruta. That wouldn't surprise me at all, since the surprising thing is that Peruta came down the way it did in a Leftist coast court.

 

[BostonFJ40]

Anyone see this...?

Hawaii man to get 2nd shot at gun license request http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_268743/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=CPFltOae

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Anyone see this...?

Hawaii man to get 2nd shot at gun license request http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_268743/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=CPFltOae

Yes, post #240

I don't think that their headline is completely accurate. It was remanded for more proceedings, but I think that it's far from over.

You're absolutely right about that. If the Supreme Court doesn't grant cert in Drake, there's a very real possibility that Peruta/Richards/Baker will drag on for two years or more.

 

[terraformer]

Yes, post #240

You're absolutely right about that. If the Supreme Court doesn't grant cert in Drake, there's a very real possibility that Peruta/Richards/Baker will drag on for two years or more.

Well, Baker will drag on that long (or god willing longer...) but Peruta and Richards won't unless the 9th Circus gets real creative. But there is nothing to indicate they will do anything more than overturn the lower court decision or soften it. I frankly don't see how they can soften it and leave it a win frankly, so this shouldn't take more than 3-6 months to come down.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Yesterday Plaintiff-Appellant Peruta filed an opposition to motions to intervene filed by the California AG, the Brady Center, and another.

Opposition.

 

[Quiet]

Yesterday Plaintiff-Appellant Peruta filed an opposition to motions to intervene filed by the California AG, the Brady Center, and another.

Opposition.

The Campaign does not allege that any of its members has been denied Carry Licenses in San Diego County; nor is the Campaign responsible for Sheriff Gore’s Carry License policies. And the harms that its members allege that they may suffer as a result of the panel’s decision are not remotely concrete and particularized, let alone actual or imminent. To the contrary, they are precisely the kind of generalized allegations that are insufficient to demonstrate injury in fact for standing purposes.

Oh the irony of arguing that those seeking to intervene in Peruta cannot show good cause...

 

[JJ4]

Yesterday Plaintiff-Appellant Peruta filed an opposition to motions to intervene filed by the California AG, the Brady Center, and another.

Opposition.

That there is gold Jerry. GOLD!!!

I love reading these things. Let me paraphrase how I hear this translated in my head: The Brady campaign is imagining things and delusional. The CPCA/CPOA didn't even make a proper motion, but even if they did they have absolutely nothing to do with this since they're essentially a union and not a government regulatory body that they insanely try to claim.

 

[MaverickNH]

That there is gold Jerry. GOLD!!!

I love reading these things. Let me paraphrase how I hear this translated in my head: The Brady campaign is imagining things and delusional. The CPCA/CPOA didn't even make a proper motion, but even if they did they have absolutely nothing to do with this since they're essentially a union and not a government regulatory body that they insanely try to claim.

Wow. Even I saw right through that crap. When your supposed majority of the public supporting your position won't pony up a dime for decent legal representation, you end up with some lousy pro bono stuff.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

That there is gold Jerry. GOLD!!!

I love reading these things. Let me paraphrase how I hear this translated in my head: The Brady campaign is imagining things and delusional. The CPCA/CPOA didn't even make a proper motion, but even if they did they have absolutely nothing to do with this since they're essentially a union and not a government regulatory body that they insanely try to claim.

Yes, exactly that. Plus, "if this court wants to humor the AG, we don't care...bring it!"

 

[Rob Boudrie]

What the opposition is really afraid of is that shall-issue CCWs will start to be issued in CA and nothing will happen. The murder rate won't go up, CCW carriers won't have gunfights over parking spaces, and the bodies will not be stacked like cordwood.

 

[Garys]

What the opposition is really afraid of is that shall-issue CCWs will start to be issued in CA and nothing will happen. The murder rate won't go up, CCW carriers won't have gunfights over parking spaces, and the bodies will not be stacked like cordwood.

That is what they are always afraid of and that's what always happens. Since FL passed their CCW laws back in the mid 1980s, every time a state adopts CCW friendly laws the usual suspects start spouting off about "Dodge City" , "Blood in the streets", the "Danger to police officers", and the infamous "What used to be a fist fight will now be a gun fight" lines. None of it happens, but that just means they'll use those same lies again the next time.

 

[Paul455]

Over 100,000 deaths per year attributed to medical errors.

We need to outlaw doctors.

It is much more dangerous to go to a hospital than being cut down on the mean streets of Boston by an assault rifle.......................

 

[Rob Boudrie]

That is what they are always afraid of and that's what always happens.

Over 90% of the LTCs issued in MA are LTC-A/restriction:none and crime by LTC holders is virtually unheard of.

None of it happens, but that just means they'll use those same lies again the next time.

True, but those lies are losing credibility over time as shall issue CCW becomes more the norm than the exception.

 

[Quiet]

Yes, exactly that. Plus, "if this court wants to humor the AG, we don't care...bring it!"

I have to say that position left me scratching my head. Why invite in an intervenor who brings with them a whole bunch of gravitas and perhaps chits to be cashed?

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

I have to say that position left me scratching my head. Why invite in an intervenor who brings with them a whole bunch of gravitas and perhaps chits to be cashed?

It tells me a couple of possible things:

• Peruta feels that they can handle anything the AG throws at them;
• That the 9th may be unlikely to grant intervenor status at this junction given that the AG had every opportunity up until this point to intervene and declined;
• It's better to have a victory untainted by the claim that the issues weren't fully vetted

 

[Garys]

Over 90% of the LTCs issued in MA are LTC-A/restriction:none and crime by LTC holders is virtually unheard of.

True, but those lies are losing credibility over time as shall issue CCW becomes more the norm than the exception.

Outside of a few states, of which we are all aware, CCW is not a big deal. In fact in the south, it's pretty much the norm.

Which brings me to a procedural question. The Ninth Circuit denies the petition for an En Banc hearing. Can the Sheriff then appeal to SCOTUS for cert? Or did he forfeit that route when he declined to petition for the En Banc hearing?

 

[terraformer]

It tells me a couple of possible things:

• Peruta feels that they can handle anything the AG throws at them;
• That the 9th may be unlikely to grant intervenor status at this junction given that the AG had every opportunity up until this point to intervene and declined;
• It's better to have a victory untainted by the claim that the issues weren't fully vetted

That they want their case appealed to SCOTUS...

 

[dcmdon]

That they want their case appealed to SCOTUS...

EXACTLY. I've been hanging back reading because frankly you all know a lot more about this than I do. But this is one item that seems pretty apparent.

Peruta solidifies the federal split at the appellate level on a question of significant constitutional relevance. Its a natural for the SCOTUS to pickup. CA just wants to limit the issuance of LTCs.

Peruta wants to make case law. His attorney Alan Gura has had just a bit of success in that area lately.

 

[terraformer]

EXACTLY. I've been hanging back reading because frankly you all know a lot more about this than I do. But this is one item that seems pretty apparent.

Peruta solidifies the federal split at the appellate level on a question of significant constitutional relevance. Its a natural for the SCOTUS to pickup. CA just wants to limit the issuance of LTCs.

Peruta wants to make case law. His attorney Alan Gura has had just a bit of success in that area lately.

Gura is not Perutas atty. Paul Clement and Chuck Michel are.

 

[noddaduma]

Clement and Michel might not be Gura, but they are all well-acquainted. They and others may or may not have been coordinating efforts to get the 2A secured since before Heller. Peruta is part of a concerted (and non-NRA driven) effort to improve things in CA and at the federal level