-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Peruta STANDS! Update post 70: Nope
- Thread starter soloman02
- Start date
If 'super en banc' actually exists, it's something unique to the 9th circuit only because the 9th is the only circuit where en banc review does not include ALL the circuit's judges. The 9th has 30 something judges (by contrast, the first circuit is six, I think), and it's just impractical to have all of them sit on an en banc panel. I don't know if this has ever been requested before or if the 9th circuit's rules even allow for it.
The sage continues!
Yes they do.
Kozinski in 2003 said:
I believe it's still the case that it's never actually happened. They have called for briefing on whether to grant it before, but never granted it.
Yesterday: PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
This should sound familiar to many Massachusetts residents:
This should sound familiar to many Massachusetts residents:
I saw some talk about this over on calguns. They are worried that if Peruta or the other defendants have out of state licenses like a Utah CCW, and the national carry reciprocity passes, the court might be able to get rid of this on a technicality by saying they no longer have standing since the out of state CCW lets them carry in CA. If there is no harm for the court to redress, they don't need to hear the case anymore.
I'd be happier with a pro-2a SCOTUS decision than with a national reciprocity law. The court decision would be more durable; laws can be repealed anytime, or challenged by states that can then sit back and wait for the courts. At least a SCOTUS decision would be binding, presumably. Even MA would eventually have to follow it, or at least the courts would.
Even with national reciprocity, I doubt the Calguns guys would lack standing, anyway; a remedy that requires subjecting yourself to a different state's laws is no remedy at all. That's how a NorCal court would see it, I would hope.
Doesn't Massachusetts now ignore the SCOTUS decision(s) from a few years back? If there is no penalty for ignoring the law, then what?
Does this mean ALL laws have entirely lost meaning? Are we no longer living in "a nation of laws"
Hillary Clinton broke the law and she hasn't even been charged. The FBI director invented a new doctrine (which will only be applied to the ruling elite) that lack of malice means that lawbreaking is OK. In MA, Maura Healy usurped the power of the legislative branch to create new law, upending 20 years of firearms law precedent.
I think you have your answer.
Last edited:
Its more an issue of the courts trying to weasel out of decisions that define the "Bear" part of keep and bear arms. If given half a chance to call it moot or say they lack standing they will jump right on it. I'm not sure that they would lose standing but if they already have an out of state CCW and that becomes enough to CCW in CA they might.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2010
- Messages
- 168
- Likes
- 1,256
Today, Comm2A and five other state-level Second Amendment organizations filed an amicus brief with the US Supreme Court in support of Peruta's petition for a writ of certiorari.
We're very happy to have had attorney David Jensen submit this brief, which can be found here: http://comm2a.org/images/PDFs/peruta_amici.pdf
We're very happy to have had attorney David Jensen submit this brief, which can be found here: http://comm2a.org/images/PDFs/peruta_amici.pdf
DarthRevan
NES Member
Keeping busy I see!
Peruta is on the agenda for today's conference having been rescheduled several times over the last month. Don't be surprised if it continues to get scheduled. Gorsuch is probably not up to speed on all the pending petitions and this is the kind of petition that they won't act on without the partition of all nine justices.
Docket
Docket
LTCRN
NES Member
We've waited this long, what's a little longer, as long as SCOTUS takes on the case and we win.
MachineHead
NES Member
Second Amendment case Peruta vs. California may be heading to Supreme Court
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/05/1...lifornia-may-be-heading-to-supreme-court.html
Let's get this show on the road!
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/05/1...lifornia-may-be-heading-to-supreme-court.html
Let's get this show on the road!
Garys
NES Member
If the other Justices know for sure that a Justice is retiring at the end of the term, then they are likely to postpone a decision on the petition until after that Justice is replaced. At least that's my guess, especially if it turns out that Kennedy or Ginsburg is retiring.
amm5061
NES Member
Didn't Ruthie already say she wouldn't retire while Trump was president? She's more likely to stroke out, especially if we get a case like this in front of her and she has to write a dissent.
I don't think she has the fight left in her for another 3.5 years or so. I think she will duck out, or if the president see's that she is no longer fit for office he can ask to have her removed. Its something that's never been done, but we have never seen a Pres like Trump before and its in the constitution.
Jason.
If Trump asks her to resign I think the left will go catatonic.
Sent from my m8whl using Tapatalk
amm5061
NES Member
Yeah, not likely he would do that, but it would be hilarious to see the results. Personally I would just like to see him break up the 9th circuit.
Why would a President ask a SCOTUS judge to resign? It would be overstepping their authority and the SCOTUS judge would most likely say "eff no" just out of spite.
Justice Ginsberg will resign if and when she wants to, or she may choose to go out with her boots on, and there really isn't anything the President can do about it.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,555
- Likes
- 33,621
Pereuta will only be granted cert if 4 of the justices think the decision will go their way.
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,821
This is likely the real story here. Chances are high that Kennedy is retiring this summer and so they may not grant cert given that there is an open question about who will replace him.
What about the President asking to have a Justice removed is in the Constitution? The House can impeach with simple majority, and the Senate confirm with 2/3. I guess he could ask the House to do that, but there is nothing in the Constitution specifically about the President being involved in the process.
[h=1]Second Amendment case Peruta vs. California may be heading to Supreme Court[/h]
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/05/1...lifornia-may-be-heading-to-supreme-court.html
[FONT="]The Second Amendment is only 27 words, but Americans have used millions of words arguing over what it means. It guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” But which people, what arms, and under what circumstances?[/FONT]
[FONT="]Two milestone cases involving the Second Amendment that reached the Supreme Court are District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), declaring an individual has a right to own a firearm, and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), affirming the Second Amendment applies to state law. [/FONT]
[FONT="]WHY JUSTICE GORSUCH WILL HAVE AN IMMEDIATE (AND BIG) IMPACT ON THE SUPREME COURT[/FONT]
[FONT="]Now, if the Supreme Court decides to hear it, there may be a third major case in a decade: Peruta v. California.[/FONT]
[FONT="]At issue is the right to keep and bear arms outside the home. The Heller case specifically applies to situations within the home. Those who have petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case are hoping the justices will see it as a logical extension of their earlier opinions.[/FONT]
[FONT="]The case arose when Edward Peruta and other gun owners who lived in or near San Diego, Calif., couldn’t get concealed-carry permits in their county. The Sheriff’s Department handles permit requests and requires “good cause” to carry a gun outside of the home. This does not mean a generalized concern for safety, but something specific, such as fear of domestic violence or a regular need to move large amounts of money.[/FONT]
[h=2]Related Image[/h]
Expand / Collapse
If the Supreme Court decides to hear it, there may be a third major case in a decade involving the Second Amendment. (Reuters)
[FONT="]There were two separate lawsuits challenging the interpretation of “good cause,” but the district courts found no violation of the Second Amendment.[/FONT]
[FONT="]CALIFORNIA CONCEALED WEAPON LAW TOSSED BY FED APPEALS COURT[/FONT]
[FONT="]Then, in 2014, a three-judge panel on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the policy did indeed violate the right to bear arms for self-defense. The state, however, got a new hearing in front of 11 9th Circuit judges, who decided 7-4, the restrictions for concealed-carry permits were allowable.[/FONT]
[FONT="]The case has now been appealed to the Supreme Court and though the Justices have rescheduled its consideration several times, some experts feel the court is finally ready to hear Peruta.[/FONT]
[FONT="]“I suspect they’re going to grant it,” said John Eastman, former law dean at Chapman University and the director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Eastman told Fox News, “it’s percolating all across the country.”[/FONT]
[FONT="]He also feels the justices may have put it off while waiting for a full complement on the court, which they got when Neil Gorsuch was confirmed last month. Gorsuch, in fact, may be the justice to tip the opinion in one direction or the other, as previous Second Amendment cases were determined in a 5-4 ruling.[/FONT]
[FONT="]According to Eugene Volokh, professor of law at University of California at Los Angeles, this case is primed for the Supreme Court, as it deals with a basic constitutional right and “the lower courts are split on the issue.”[/FONT]
[FONT="]It would be a good time for the highest court to step in and settle the controversy. He also feels that while no one is sure how Gorsuch will vote, there is a “sense that he’s sympathetic to a broader view” of the Second Amendment.[/FONT]
[FONT="]The case may turn on how the court frames the issue. To Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California Irvine School of Law, the legal question to be settled is whether a state like California may determine its own rules on concealed-carry permits. [/FONT]
[FONT="]“The Second Amendment isn’t an absolute right,” Chemerinsky notes. Throughout British and American history, “there’s never been a right to have concealed weapons.”[/FONT]
[FONT="]But Eugene Volokh believes there’s a bigger issue at stake. If the state of California, which essentially bans open carry of a gun, makes it next to impossible for a typical citizen to get a concealed-carry permit, this is “tantamount to banning” the right to bear arms “except for a few favored people.”[/FONT]
[FONT="]Experts agree on one point. As Chemerinsky puts it, if Peruta is taken up, “no matter what the Supreme Court says, it will be a landmark decision.”[/FONT]
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/05/1...lifornia-may-be-heading-to-supreme-court.html
[FONT="]The Second Amendment is only 27 words, but Americans have used millions of words arguing over what it means. It guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” But which people, what arms, and under what circumstances?[/FONT]
[FONT="]Two milestone cases involving the Second Amendment that reached the Supreme Court are District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), declaring an individual has a right to own a firearm, and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), affirming the Second Amendment applies to state law. [/FONT]
[FONT="]WHY JUSTICE GORSUCH WILL HAVE AN IMMEDIATE (AND BIG) IMPACT ON THE SUPREME COURT[/FONT]
[FONT="]Now, if the Supreme Court decides to hear it, there may be a third major case in a decade: Peruta v. California.[/FONT]
[FONT="]At issue is the right to keep and bear arms outside the home. The Heller case specifically applies to situations within the home. Those who have petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case are hoping the justices will see it as a logical extension of their earlier opinions.[/FONT]
[FONT="]The case arose when Edward Peruta and other gun owners who lived in or near San Diego, Calif., couldn’t get concealed-carry permits in their county. The Sheriff’s Department handles permit requests and requires “good cause” to carry a gun outside of the home. This does not mean a generalized concern for safety, but something specific, such as fear of domestic violence or a regular need to move large amounts of money.[/FONT]
[h=2]Related Image[/h]
If the Supreme Court decides to hear it, there may be a third major case in a decade involving the Second Amendment. (Reuters)
[FONT="]There were two separate lawsuits challenging the interpretation of “good cause,” but the district courts found no violation of the Second Amendment.[/FONT]
[FONT="]CALIFORNIA CONCEALED WEAPON LAW TOSSED BY FED APPEALS COURT[/FONT]
[FONT="]Then, in 2014, a three-judge panel on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the policy did indeed violate the right to bear arms for self-defense. The state, however, got a new hearing in front of 11 9th Circuit judges, who decided 7-4, the restrictions for concealed-carry permits were allowable.[/FONT]
[FONT="]The case has now been appealed to the Supreme Court and though the Justices have rescheduled its consideration several times, some experts feel the court is finally ready to hear Peruta.[/FONT]
[FONT="]“I suspect they’re going to grant it,” said John Eastman, former law dean at Chapman University and the director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Eastman told Fox News, “it’s percolating all across the country.”[/FONT]
[FONT="]He also feels the justices may have put it off while waiting for a full complement on the court, which they got when Neil Gorsuch was confirmed last month. Gorsuch, in fact, may be the justice to tip the opinion in one direction or the other, as previous Second Amendment cases were determined in a 5-4 ruling.[/FONT]
[FONT="]According to Eugene Volokh, professor of law at University of California at Los Angeles, this case is primed for the Supreme Court, as it deals with a basic constitutional right and “the lower courts are split on the issue.”[/FONT]
[FONT="]It would be a good time for the highest court to step in and settle the controversy. He also feels that while no one is sure how Gorsuch will vote, there is a “sense that he’s sympathetic to a broader view” of the Second Amendment.[/FONT]
[FONT="]The case may turn on how the court frames the issue. To Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California Irvine School of Law, the legal question to be settled is whether a state like California may determine its own rules on concealed-carry permits. [/FONT]
[FONT="]“The Second Amendment isn’t an absolute right,” Chemerinsky notes. Throughout British and American history, “there’s never been a right to have concealed weapons.”[/FONT]
[FONT="]But Eugene Volokh believes there’s a bigger issue at stake. If the state of California, which essentially bans open carry of a gun, makes it next to impossible for a typical citizen to get a concealed-carry permit, this is “tantamount to banning” the right to bear arms “except for a few favored people.”[/FONT]
[FONT="]Experts agree on one point. As Chemerinsky puts it, if Peruta is taken up, “no matter what the Supreme Court says, it will be a landmark decision.”[/FONT]
This is what I was saying this part is in the Constitution is that the house has the powers and the President can ask his house to file the paper work.
Jason.
Garys
NES Member
It would be inappropriate for a President (any President) to ask a Justice to retire or resign. The President does not have the power to break up a Circuit.
The President can propose that a Circuit be broken up, but that would require a law to be passed.
Judges have been impeached and convicted, but I'm not sure that a Supreme Court Justice has ever been impeached, let alone convicted.
The President can propose that a Circuit be broken up, but that would require a law to be passed.
Judges have been impeached and convicted, but I'm not sure that a Supreme Court Justice has ever been impeached, let alone convicted.
Similar threads
