Here is a pretty good summary
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150326/california-the-battle-for-shall-issue-is-on
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150326/california-the-battle-for-shall-issue-is-on
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***
Here is a pretty good summary
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150326/california-the-battle-for-shall-issue-is-on
s a result of the 3-judge panel’s decision in Peruta, several California counties that had policies similar to San Diego’s have changed those policies from a restrictive “good cause” standard that few could meet, to one that accepts general self-defense as “good cause,” which most anyone can meet. Orange and Ventura counties are among the California jurisdictions that have changed their ways since the Peruta decision was issued. Previously, applicants had to show proof of specific threats, such as a police report or a protective order, to prove they were in immediate danger before they could get a license. Since the Peruta decision, these counties have generally been accepting self-defense as “good-cause” for obtaining a license.
If the Peruta decision is upheld by the en banc panel, all of the states and territories in the Ninth Circuit would also have to review their license issuance policies, and revise them to conform to the Peruta decision. The Ninth Circuit includes Alaska and Arizona (“constitutional carry” states), Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington (“shall issue” states). It also includes Guam, which has already changed its policy in light of Peruta. And it includes California and Hawaii, the outliers.
I give it about a 1% chance that the 9th CCA en banc panel will uphold the Peruta decision. I hope I'm wrong.
I give it about a 1% chance that the 9th CCA en banc panel will uphold the Peruta decision. I hope I'm wrong.
Regrettably, you are probably right. There was no justification for acceptance of the en banc appeal, and the only reason it was accepted was almost certainly a distaste for the existing decision and a desire to change it after a fair and impartial hearing.
Which is fine if SCOTUS takes up the case. If they don't then it sucks.
And the chief judge of the 9th, thomas was the dissent in the cases. He's a very liberal obama appointee. So liberal, he was interviewed by obama for SCOTUS a few years ago.
- - - Updated - - -
Regardless of this case, there is still a circuit split. They need to take the issue and set the lib circuits straight.
I thought Illinois lost their conceal carry lawsuit in federal court, resulting in circuit split if Peruta is struck down.The circuit split will be resolved once the 9th overrules Peruta.
I thought Illinois lost their conceal carry lawsuit in federal court, resulting in circuit split if Peruta is struck down.
I remember reading an artilce speculating on why SCOTUS has not taken any 2A cases. The rational was that Kennedy (I think he's the swing) couldn't be relied on to rule either way. So both factions of the court are nervous that the other side will get what they want so they keep turning away cases. The thing to remember is that here are anti-gun judges on the court and if this makes it to SCOTUS they could rule against our rights. My supreme hope is that if it does make it there then they secure our rights but I'm also supremely worried that they wont.
I'm never comfortable with Kennedy but he tends to lean libertarian on many issues.
The circuit split will be resolved once the 9th overrules Peruta.
Which they might, although I'm told that 9CA rarely over rules a 3 judge panel.
I have to wonder if including Richards gives them a way to deny intervenor status to the CA AG and still allows a path to SCOTUS if they uphold Peruta. My memory is a bit hazy, but isn't the reason that the AG petitioned for intervenor status due to the County deciding not to continue defending the case?
Are you saying Deputy Clerks of the court have pull in en banc hearings?I'll have you guys know that if I know Pinky Argoza as we as I think I do and she has any say in the matter, this is going to be one quick rendering and Peruta will have his win.
View attachment 138241
Lol, I just had to.
Not at all, Rob. I was being a wise guy. A little sarcasm while pointing out probably the silliest name any one of us have seen on a legal document.
I get emails at work from a "Richard Head" and they are totally legit emails from an actual employee. Imagine that guy growing up.
Yep, caught that also.Judge just called this a "political issue". That's troubling they she sees the 2nd Amendment that way