Peruta STANDS! Update post 70: Nope

goodzilla said:
Judge just called this a "political issue". That's troubling they she sees the 2nd Amendment that way
Click to expand...
One of the great victories of the left has been to successfully swap rights and privileges. Hence the rights become political issues and the privileges become a given

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk
 
Guy speaking now is constructing argument that you can carry for self defense outside the home as long as you're not around other people...

[laugh]

Oh, and I've only heard "Everytown" about a half dozen times in the course of the last 10 minutes...the Bloomberg runs deep.
 
The judges for the en banc hearing are 7 Dem appointed and 3 from R's.



Chief judge Thomas (obama appointee and dissenter in peruta)

Pregerson (carter appointee, born in 1923!. Probably the one falling asleep)

Silverman (Clinton)

Graber (Clinton)

McKeown (Clinton)

W. Fletcher (Clinton)

Paez (Clinton)

Callahan (W appointee, was part of the 3 judge panel)

Bea (W)

N.R. Smith (W)

Owens (Obama)
 
Its sad that it has come to this. They pick apart to death the very right of a law abiding citizen to defend ones life.
 
Hoover said:
The judges for the en banc hearing are 7 Dem appointed and 3 from R's.



Chief judge Thomas (obama appointee and dissenter in peruta)

Pregerson (carter appointee, born in 1923!. Probably the one falling asleep)

Silverman (Clinton)

Graber (Clinton)

McKeown (Clinton)

W. Fletcher (Clinton)

Paez (Clinton)

Callahan (W appointee, was part of the 3 judge panel)

Bea (W)

N.R. Smith (W)

Owens (Obama)
Click to expand...


Well, that's depressing.

When I joined the broadcast yesterday, a female judge on the left was chiding the lawyer from the CA AG office for not participating sooner to avoid this mess. Paraphrasing, but she clearly thought that the 9th wouldn't have to be bothered with an embarrassing en banc if the state did it's job and better represented in the first go around. I'm a layman, but based on the engagement level of the justices, it seemed pretty clear to me that this hearing was a formality for the very liberal court to "get it right" and restore their reputation. Sad.

So what's next, the 9th does the "best 2 out of 3", right [sad2]?
 
goodzilla said:
Well, that's depressing.

When I joined the broadcast yesterday, a female judge on the left was chiding the lawyer from the CA AG office for not participating sooner to avoid this mess. Paraphrasing, but she clearly thought that the 9th wouldn't have to be bothered with an embarrassing en banc if the state did it's job and better represented in the first go around. I'm a layman, but based on the engagement level of the justices, it seemed pretty clear to me that this hearing was a formality for the very liberal court to "get it right" and restore their reputation. Sad.

So what's next, the 9th does the "best 2 out of 3", right [sad2]?
Click to expand...

There will be a good dissent.
 
goodzilla said:
Well, that's depressing.

When I joined the broadcast yesterday, a female judge on the left was chiding the lawyer from the CA AG office for not participating sooner to avoid this mess. Paraphrasing, but she clearly thought that the 9th wouldn't have to be bothered with an embarrassing en banc if the state did it's job and better represented in the first go around. I'm a layman, but based on the engagement level of the justices, it seemed pretty clear to me that this hearing was a formality for the very liberal court to "get it right" and restore their reputation. Sad.

So what's next, the 9th does the "best 2 out of 3", right [sad2]?
Click to expand...

Anything en banc in the 9th is not going to go well for liberty, that almost certain. Clinton really stacked that court, I think he put 11 judges on that court (total number is 29 or so) and obama has another 7 and Carter still has 2. It's been called the 9th circus for a reason.

The writing was on the wall when they scraped the process and did this BS en banc. The dissenter in peruta was the chief judge, liberal sidney thomas an obama appointee. He was very butt hurt he lost and wanted to get it fixed.

Maybe SCOTUS takes a look at the case because of the bs pulled here? SCOTUS looks at the 9th decisions a lot because they are so often wrong.
 
terraformer said:
There will be a good dissent.
Click to expand...
No doubt about that.

Hoover said:
....
Maybe SCOTUS takes a look at the case because of the bs pulled here?
Click to expand...
The AG's standing is certainly an issue here. But more importantly, the divisions between the lower courts, or even within this court, make this an important issue for SCOTUS to take up. Having turned down all the other carry cases, they're now just left with the 9th and DC Circuits to pick from. In hindsight I can probably understand why SCOTUS would want to let carry 'ferment' and have the lower courts do the heavily lifting and play out all the issues. But there are actually scenarios in play where the opportunity may have been lost and SCOTUS won't hear a carry case.

If our side wins in both the 9th (unlikely now) & DC Circuits, there may be nothing to appeal. Unlike what happened in Heller, California and DC may not be willing to risk appealing a loss to SCOTUS. DC made this mistake in Heller and they operate knowing that Congress can come in at anytime and make DC 'shall issue'.

If both the 9th and the DC circuits go against us, SCOTUS could just decide there's not enough of a controversy to warrant taking a carry case. At this point the only circuit court carry win we have would have been in the 7th Circuit and IL took that hit and moved on. As big a win as Peruta was, we can't use that as a circuit split if the en banc panel overturns it.

Hoover said:
....
SCOTUS looks at the 9th decisions a lot because they are so often wrong.
Click to expand...
Keeping score on how often a particular circuit is reversed by SCOTUS is tricky business. Assuming that the en banc panel reverses, SCOTUS grants cert, and vacates the judgement, you'd normally say "there, CA9 is reversed again". In reality however, that would be a reversal of CA2, CA3, CA4 (maybe the DC Circuit). CA9 just provided the vehicle for reversal. If you count like that, the 9th isn't as far out of step.
 
Remember, there is the other alternative. That the 9th Circus turns this into Nordyke and it goes up and down over and over again. The bulk of the questions I heard were definitely attempting to find areas to do just that.
 
terraformer said:
Remember, there is the other alternative. That the 9th Circus turns this into Nordyke and it goes up and down over and over again. The bulk of the questions I heard were definitely attempting to find areas to do just that.
Click to expand...

If that happens I'll just make a big bleach and tonic (with lime) cocktail and be done with it. If these cases (Peruta, Richard & Baker) got Nordyked* it would fall to the DC cases. And Congress could ruin that.

*Let's hope we don't have to make 'Nordyke' into a verb.
 
Coyote33 said:
Is this thing stuck here forever, or will there be some followup (appeal?)?
Click to expand...

Peruta was a 2 to 1 decision against the SD sheriff. The losing judge in the 9th circuit is a clinton appointee, a liberal POS who is also the chief judge of the circuit. The SD sheriff took the loss and did not want to appeal further. The AG of CA who was not part of the lawsuit then asked for her to be allowed into it and for her to appeal it en banc to the 9th (the 9th is such a big circuit they do not have all judges rehear it, I think they have 11 of the 29 judges here it (randomly selected). They heard it en banc and that is where we are. The chief judge is very unhappy with the decision and is doing everything he can to overturn it.
 
Coyote33 said:
Is this thing stuck here forever, or will there be some followup (appeal?)?
Click to expand...

For the en banc review, there are 11 judges. 8 are Carter, clinton or obama appointees, only 3 are W Bush judges. I would be shocked if we got a majority when there are that many liberals sitting for the enbanc.

This is was of the CA law firms part of the case, they are involved in a lot of the pro 2a suits out there.

http://michellawyers.com/guncasetracker/perutavsandiego/
 
Hoover said:
For the en banc review, there are 11 judges. 8 are Carter, clinton or obama appointees, only 3 are W Bush judges. I would be shocked if we got a majority when there are that many liberals sitting for the enbanc.

This is was of the CA law firms part of the case, they are involved in a lot of the pro 2a suits out there.

http://michellawyers.com/guncasetracker/perutavsandiego/
Click to expand...

I would be shocked if the en banc panel limited itself to simply reversing the original panel. There are so many issuing going on here starting with whether the CA AG even had standing to petition for en banc review. Don't be surprised if the panel pollutes this case by remanding it for more proceedings guaranteed to make sure it never gets to the Supreme Court in our lifetimes.
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
I would be shocked if the en banc panel limited itself to simply reversing the original panel. There are so many issuing going on here starting with whether the CA AG even had standing to petition for en banc review. Don't be surprised if the panel pollutes this case by remanding it for more proceedings guaranteed to make sure it never gets to the Supreme Court in our lifetimes.
Click to expand...

The circuit chief who lost in the appeals hearing definitely isn't happy his view lost and I agree he will do anything he can to prevent Peruta from standing. How they "legally" justifed allowing CA AG Harris into the case is pure BS.

The 9th was always called the 9th circus court of appeals, I didn't think it was as corrupt as it is now.
 
The en banc court affirmed the district courts’ judgmentsand held that there is no Second Amendment right for
members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in
public.
Appellants, who live in San Diego and Yolo Counties,
sought to carry concealed firearms in public for self-defense,
but alleged they were denied licenses to do so because they
did not satisfy the good cause requirements in their counties.
Under California law, an applicant for a license must show,
among other things, “good cause” to carry a concealed
firearm. California law authorizes county sheriffs to establish
and publish policies defining good cause. Appellants contend
that San Diego and Yolo Counties’ published policies
defining good cause violate their Second Amendment right to
keep and bear arms.
The en banc court held that the history relevant to both
the Second Amendment and its incorporation by the
Fourteenth Amendment lead to the same conclusion: The
right of a member of the general public to carry a concealed
firearm in public is not, and never has been, protected by the
Second Amendment.
Click to expand...


REVISED Link to PDF: http://comm2a.org/images/PDFs/peruta_en-banc.pdf
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Update-Liberty Safe Electronic Lock Fail
2
Replies
35
Views
977
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
549
Mesatchornug
Mesatchornug
Back
Top Bottom