Peruta STANDS! Update post 70: Nope

Beansie said:
So they can get cute and work around it, or basically say "no we were wrong, and the opposite is true", which will then open the doors to SCOTUS?
Click to expand...

The latter is more likely to get SCOTUS to bite. But they may not bite because they are waiting for DC or CA1 (ie; Davis v. Grimes). Or they are waiting for Godot, or pigs to fly, or whatever...
 
I don't read it that way. Since Sheriff Gore declined to appeal the case, others asked to step in his place to move the appeal to an En Banc rehearing. All that CA9 has said is that they will not allow that. As a result, Peruta is a dead case. Richards and I think a similar case out of HI were decided entirely on the basis of Peruta. The difference is that the original parties are still involved in those cases and thus both of those cases are still alive. Richards is awaiting the answer to the petition for an En Banc rehearing. Which CA9 could use to overturn Richards and thus Peruta.

It's legal inside baseball stuff, but it's important inside baseball stuff.

Which, if I understand what happened is why Terraformer isn't doing the same happy dance that others are.

Of course CA9 could decline the petition for En Banc hearing, but in this case I don't see that happening.



Beansie said:
So they can get cute and work around it, or basically say "no we were wrong, and the opposite is true", which will then open the doors to SCOTUS?
Click to expand...
 
Garys said:
I don't read it that way. Since Sheriff Gore declined to appeal the case, others asked to step in his place to move the appeal to an En Banc rehearing. All that CA9 has said is that they will not allow that. As a result, Peruta is a dead case. Richards and I think a similar case out of HI were decided entirely on the basis of Peruta. The difference is that the original parties are still involved in those cases and thus both of those cases are still alive. Richards is awaiting the answer to the petition for an En Banc rehearing. Which CA9 could use to overturn Richards and thus Peruta.

It's legal inside baseball stuff, but it's important inside baseball stuff.

Which, if I understand what happened is why Terraformer isn't doing the same happy dance that others are.

Of course CA9 could decline the petition for En Banc hearing, but in this case I don't see that happening.
Click to expand...

Correct, Richards is still alive and todays ruling was the same three judge panel that laid down the Peruta decision, which means they simply haven't changed their minds. The entire en banc panel has so far had no swing at this. Richards v. Yolo gives them that whack. But this is better than if Peruta was the case. Because now CA9 will have to work harder to discredit the Peruta decision.
 
Will it be a three-judge panel that decides whether to grant en banc review of the Richards case? If so, is it the same three judges that decided Peruta?

Is an appellant entitled to an en banc review (provided the request is timely and that all ducks are otherwise in a row), or does the court have discretion as to which cases to take?
 
MaynardDad said:
Will it be a three-judge panel that decides whether to grant en banc review of the Richards case? If so, is it the same three judges that decided Peruta?

Is an appellant entitled to an en banc review (provided the request is timely and that all ducks are otherwise in a row), or does the court have discretion as to which cases to take?
Click to expand...

No and no. A majority of judges in the circuit must agree to an en banc hearing. The Ninth Circuit may operate differently in that regard since it operates differently than the other circuits in that the entire panel does not rehear the case. That is due to the size of the circuit and the number of judges.

There is no right to an en banc hearing, it is granted at the discretion of the court.

- - - Updated - - -

Knuckle Dragger said:
I've yet to discover anything that will make Terraformer do a 'happy dance'.
Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with that, because it's unhappy people that drive change. Happy people don't want change.
 
Is there any way Richards or baker could back out at this point? The 3 judge panel found in their favor in Richards based on peruta - if Richards said " ah screw it, I don't want guns anyway" could it somehow become moot - leaving only peruta left to stand?
 
This is why we usually stack up a few plaintiffs, in case one bails. So no, it's not likely a plaintiff can screw it up.
 
terraformer said:
This is why we usually stack up a few plaintiffs, in case one bails. So no, it's not likely a plaintiff can screw it up.
Click to expand...
I may be misunderstanding this so I apologize if this is a dumb question, but I guess I'm wondering if the other cases that could get Peruta overturned in the 9th circuit could be dropped (by the good guys /pkantiffs) so the en banc 9th doesn't get another bite at the apple?

Wondering if Richards and Baker could drop their claims and start over, now with Peruta as precedent in lower federal courts - i guess the state could keep appealing but it would seem more uphill for the state in lower courts than them going right to the en banc 9th - no?
 
I should have gone law rather than accounting, better billable rates and you guys have much cooler jargon.

en banc > effectively connected income.
 
Quiet said:
I gotta say if I can bring my stuff and carry there, it would be a stiff competition between Texas and Hawaii. I love Aloha shirts and being in a place where I'd be called "Tiny" non sarcastically.
Click to expand...

Yeah, its a big showstopper for me. The bride would love to move to HI(though it isn't practical) but the cost of living and freedom status makes it just a nice place to visit. It just goes to show you how big an impact an overreaction to one event can have.
 
Rider said:
Yeah, its a big showstopper for me. The bride would love to move to HI(though it isn't practical) but the cost of living and freedom status makes it just a nice place to visit. It just goes to show you how big an impact an overreaction to one event can have.
Click to expand...

A tiny condo with reasonable HOA fees is doable I think. The money I'm currently paying to heat my house might offset the increase in food prices.

I dunno, I can't get that far before I remember I'd have to be unarmed.
 
Quiet said:
A tiny condo with reasonable HOA fees is doable I think. The money I'm currently paying to heat my house might offset the increase in food prices.

I dunno, I can't get that far before I remember I'd have to be unarmed.
Click to expand...

The real problem with Hawaii is finding a job that pays decent. People think the cost of living is high (and it is), but they don't take into account the fact that the average salary is also low. That's not a good combination. Plus the economy is very unbalanced since there is very little industry/economic activity other than tourism, the military, and government.
 
joshk1025 said:
The real problem with Hawaii is finding a job that pays decent. People think the cost of living is high (and it is), but they don't take into account the fact that the average salary is also low. That's not a good combination. Plus the economy is very unbalanced since there is very little industry/economic activity other than tourism, the military, and government.
Click to expand...

Retirees with medical issues love universal health care
 
Quiet said:
Retirees with medical issues love universal health care
Click to expand...

If you are concerned about healthcare, better stay up here. I was in an ER in Hawaii waiting with a family member. A woman was there who was obviously having serious trouble breathing, I'm talking life threatening levels of difficulty. She sat there for well over an hour, and finally had to call an ambulance to get emergency treatment because she was about to pass out and the ER refused to treat her out of order, even though many of the other people waiting just had non-life threatening issues that they were there for (if it is free why not right?).
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
maybe this thread will get back on track this year.
Click to expand...

We're off track but there's nothing to see here, no?

Quiet said:
So they didn't rule on the merits of an appeal, they denied motions to intervene and since there was nobody left appealing there is no appeal.

If I'm getting this right.
Click to expand...

terraformer said:
We have had circuit courts disagreeing with each other since CA2 and CA3. They both agreed the result was ok, but for very different reasons. CA9 can still overturn Peruta, but as part of Richards and not directly. It would be fundamentally the same however. So Peruta the decision stands, the lawyers get their fees, and then CA9 enbanc rules that Peruta was wrong and goes with a CA2 like decision. So for the coming weeks/months, CA is sorta shall issue, but the reality is likely going to be very different in a few months. And there is nothing saying CA counties will adhere to Peruta while Richards is waiting for en banc.
Click to expand...

Garys said:
I don't read it that way. Since Sheriff Gore declined to appeal the case, others asked to step in his place to move the appeal to an En Banc rehearing. All that CA9 has said is that they will not allow that. As a result, Peruta is a dead case.
Click to expand...

terraformer said:
Correct, Richards is still alive and todays ruling was the same three judge panel that laid down the Peruta decision, which means they simply haven't changed their minds.
Click to expand...

terraformer said:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...uns-good-bye-peruta-hello-richards-and-baker/
And here is Volokh stating much the same as I did. Today's decision is largely irrelevant.
Click to expand...

The case is over, others relying on it are moving forward. Hawaii is warm, I'm cold and wanna move there with my guns relying on Peruta.
 
Quiet said:
We're off track but there's nothing to see here, no?
Click to expand...

There IS something to see here. Yesterday California AG, Kamala Harris filed for an en banc review of the circuit panel's decision NOT to allow CA to interven in the case. (Petition) Although they have absolutly no claim to standing, especially at this late stage, the Brady Center is piling on as well.

Case recap:
Pertua sues San Diego Sheriff Gore over Gore's CCW permit policies and loses in district court.

Pertua appeals and wins BIG at the 9th circuit. The three judge panel issues an opinion, but does NOT issue an order. The same panel hears two other carry cases, one from CA (Richards) and one from HI (Baker). Those cases are summarily dealt with based upon the Peruta decision. This is when things get interesting.

Sheriff Gore announces that he will not seek en banc review or appeal to SCOTUS, BUT the CA AG, Brady Center, and other various cats and dogs file motions to intervene in order to continue the appeals process. None of these parties have a legitimate claim to standing at this point in the proceedings. The AG could have (and probably should have) sought intervention when Peruta was in the district court but did not. Earlier this month the same three judge panel that ruled on Peruta, Richards, and Baker denied intervention motions by the AG and others.

So, at this time, the Peruta decision stands, but an order still has not issued. The next step will be for an en banc panel of the 9th circuit to consider the AG's Hail Mary motion and rule. After that, who knows.
 
RImike said:
Can you please explain what that means in layman's term? Thanks
Click to expand...

It means the chief judge of the circuit is asking for briefs to be filed on whether or not the en banc review should be heard when everyone knows San Diego gave up their right to appeal. They desperately do not want to have to overrule Peruta via Richards.
 
terraformer said:
It means the chief judge of the circuit is asking for briefs to be filed on whether or not the en banc review should be heard when everyone knows San Diego gave up their right to appeal. They desperately do not want to have to overrule Peruta via Richards.
Click to expand...

So the chief justice is trying to use the en-banc review to overturn Peruta?
 
joshk1025 said:
So the chief justice is trying to use the en-banc review to overturn Peruta?
Click to expand...

Yes. This is a bigger deal in the west than it is here. Here it happens all of the time. The SJC took both Caetano and Holden on sua sponte as well as Reyes and McGowan back during the storage wars of 2013.
 
Why don't they want to use Richards?


terraformer said:
It means the chief judge of the circuit is asking for briefs to be filed on whether or not the en banc review should be heard when everyone knows San Diego gave up their right to appeal. They desperately do not want to have to overrule Peruta via Richards.
Click to expand...
 

Similar threads

Update-Liberty Safe Electronic Lock Fail
2
Replies
35
Views
981
GaryO
GaryO
Man shot in the head in NYC subway during rush hour; person of interest in custody - UPDATE POST 16
2
Replies
49
Views
1K
Reptile
Reptile
Carry in Post Office
2
Replies
58
Views
2K
StevieP
StevieP
post trump, covid vax family relations: conservatives vs liberals
3 4 5
Replies
130
Views
3K
67ray
67ray
Cant post an add in the Classiifieds, what gives?
Replies
13
Views
555
Mesatchornug
Mesatchornug
Back
Top Bottom