Peruta v. San Diego

Status
Not open for further replies.
We should remember that sometimes a US Supreme Court loss turns into a win.

In Kelo we got screwed on the entire issue of local governments taking property away from one private owner and gifting it to another at gunpoint. We got laws passed in many states in response banning that crap.

Either way we need an answer so we can start fighting back, either legislatively or in the courts.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Right now we have a clear win in Peruta. I think it would be good if the SC did not hear the case, but instead let it stand as is, with appropriate language. Let a win stay a win.

Drake is the one we want them to hear. Drake is a loss right now. Let the SC hear (overturn) a loss, not a win.
 
We got laws passed in many states in response banning that crap.
Click to expand...
Yes, but not in all. A Supreme Court finding that there's really no right to carry outside the home would be a setback either way.

First off, in states like New Jersey, New York, California, and others, you might see every form of carry permit issuance taken off the table. At best, they'd keep their existing system with little incentive to change.

More permissive states probably would probably just keep doing what they're doing.

Second, it would be a step back to boxing in and reducing the scope of the RKBA. A loss here could leave us with the Heller dicta that the right essentially applies to a single, registered handgun for home defense and that's it. Future 2A litigation would be untenable for a very long time.
 
Right now we have a clear win in Peruta. I think it would be good if the SC did not hear the case, but instead let it stand as is, with appropriate language. Let a win stay a win.

Drake is the one we want them to hear. Drake is a loss right now. Let the SC hear (overturn) a loss, not a win.
Click to expand...

A) You're assuming a Peruta loss and a Drake win at the same time in your argument. If Peruta would fall at SCOTUS, so would Drake.

B) If Drake falls, Peruta would be all but nullified as well- so even if they heard Drake, and upheld our loss there, our win in Peruta is on very thin ice. Even if the window for challenging Peruta had passed and no avenue of appeal was there to re-open it, the next similar case would overturn the Peruta opinion.

C) You're forgetting one of the first and most common observations about Peruta- namely it's importance as a Circuit split. Peruta was considered/speculated (here at least) to be the nail in the coffin encapsulating SCOTUS reluctance to decide carry outside the home. With a nearly 1:1 split concerning half the country it was predicted SCOTUS wouldn't be able to leave Drake and the rest alone anymore.

Ergo: Even IF Peruta is "left as a win", it's not likely to be left alone. Leaving Peruta as a win, means Drake, and possibly Peruta and others will likely be heard. Even if it is Drake alone, the repercussions for Peruta, Moore, Woolard?, and others are still there.

I could be wrong, and if I am I'm sure one of the pros on here will point out where, but that's the gist I'm getting. IF Peruta stands, the Drake is almost assured Cert. IF Drake gets Cert, Peruta, Moore, Woolard, and other carry cases are all going to be affected by the decision. If that's the case, I want Peruta in there anyway. I want O'Scannlain's opinion with it's near plagiaristic citing and imitation of the Heller decision in front of the Court that wrote Heller.
 
motorhead0922 said:
Drake is the one we want them to hear. Drake is a loss right now. Let the SC hear (overturn) a loss, not a win.
Click to expand...

I think it's less about which case is a win and which a loss, and more about, "Which is the best case, the most likely case to give us the SCOTUS result affirming carry as a right?"

If both cases are equal in that regard, then perhaps having them hear a loss is better, for the reason you mention.

I do agree with JimDandy when he said, in effect, "I want as much of O'Scanns opinion in front of SCOTUS as we can get."
 
What are the chances that Gore throws Harris under the bus for not getting involved in the first place, opposing her attempt to intervene after he surrendered?
 
JimDandy said:
What are the chances that Gore throws Harris under the bus for not getting involved in the first place, opposing her attempt to intervene after he surrendered?
Click to expand...

How would he do this?
 
By saying what others have already been saying. She has repeatedly backed out of these sorts of cases in the past, and is only trying to intervene in this one after the fact, when it was a loss. That, as she's said in the past, she doesn't set the policy or pass the laws, so its not within her job description. The sort of thing you can see earlier in the thread where people have speculated about the slap on the wrist she might get from the judges themselves.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimDandy
What are the chances that Gore throws Harris under the bus for not getting involved in the first place, opposing her attempt to intervene after he surrendered?
Click to expand...

How would he do this?
Click to expand...

By documenting what the AGO knew about the proceedings and the challenges to Cali law and what it said regarding declining to participate. Court could request this info or Peruta could get it and supply supporting declaration through counsel.
 
Date has passed for a judge on the 9th to ask for en banc, but I doubt it means anything due to the pending briefs asking for it. April 2 (or about) is the next marker.
 
Maestro, I figure they have until replies to the briefs for intervention and en banc are filed, evaluated and the briefs denied or accepted, which runs the timeline out to April 2, or would it be April 9?

I have seen nothing that confirms/denies a judge is pushing for en banc. March 6 has passed without a judge saying something, but I am not sure it matters at all.
 
Last edited:
Those arguments are in the motion for intervention filed along with the petition on Feb 27. I believe what was filed as a petition is being treated as a proposed petition, but it will not be filed a petition unless intervention is first granted. If intervention is granted, I believe the order will provide for the filing of a Petition. I suppose it could order the proposed petition filed or give the AG so many days to file a petition.
 
Couple of things. First, although the parties were directed to file responses to the intervention motions by a specified date, that order was directory, not mandatory, i.e., setting a filing deadline for filing. So Gore did not have to file anything, and there is no penalty because he "failed" to do so.

Second, Appellants take what I thought was an unusual approach. They opposed the motions by Brady Campaign and CPOA on the basis of lack of standing, and I rather suspect that the Court will agree.

However, the opposition to the AG's motion was a surprise. After arguing that the AG has no statutory right to intervene, Appellants conceded that the court nonetheless has discretionary authority under the rule to grant the motion. Appellants expressly stated that they did not oppose the court's exercise of discretion to grant the motion to intervene. This is kind of strange at first take, because there are plenty of good factual reasons that could be argued against granting the motion, specifically the fact that the AG has on numerous occasions declined to voluntarily participate, or has filed motions to dismiss in cases that sought to add the AG as a party.

So why did Appellants/NRA roll over on a motion that there was a good chance they would win? Some have suggested that it was to show "respect" to the court, and bow to the inevitable. I think that is nonsense. Instead I think that a strategic decision was made to allow the en banc petition to go forward in that petitions have been filed in the companion Richards v. Prieto companion case. Appellants did not want to take the risk that the Richards petition would be granted, but that because of the denial of the motion to intervene, they would not have a place at the table. And this is especially so given the long standing animosity between the NRA/Mitchell faction (Peruta) and the CalGuns/SAF/Gura (Richards) faction, plus the great potential that these cases will find their way to the Supreme Court cert docket.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top