Peruta v. San Diego

Status
Not open for further replies.
Interesting developments in the Peruta 9th Circuit appeals case.

Former SG Paul Clement was substituted into Peruta, yesterday. Today he filed a letter on the impact of A.B. 144 on the impact of the district courts ruling.

This is the NRA playing the BIG GUNS, on a case that will impact carry laws outside of CA, if the 9th gets it wrong.
 
This is the NRA playing the BIG GUNS, on a case that will impact carry laws outside of CA, if the 9th gets it wrong.
Click to expand...
AB 144 is now the 800lb gorilla in the china shop. If the 9th sticks with their guns, we get a chance to appeal.

On the other hand, if they give ground, we've got ourselves a possible circuit split.
 
By putting Paul Clement on the case, the NRA has just shown the 9th Circuit where they expect this case to go, regardless of the outcome.
 
With the recent (today, June 1st) decision in Nordyke, it is prudent to show some of what is going on in other cases.

From the currently stayed Peruta case:

6.1.2012 Appellants Peruta_Appellants’ Citation of Supplemental Authority Pursuant to Rule 28(j)

5.25.2012 Appellants Appellants’ Reply to Opposition to Motion For Relief From Stay

5.22.2012 Appellees Appellee’s Opposition to Motion For Relief From Stay

5.18.2012 Appellants Declaration of Sean A. Brady In Support of Appellants’ Motion For Relief From Stay

5.18.2012 Appellants Appellants’ Motion For Relief From Stay

4.19.2012 Appellants Appellants’ Citation of Supplemental Authority_Pursuant to Rule 28(j) Re: Bateman v. Perdue

4.5.2012 Non-Party/Amici Friend of the Court letter from Attorney Allan J. Mayer
Click to expand...

This latest supplemental citation, is the Nordyke decision. Attention should also be given to the amici letter from attorney Allan Mayer, who is requesting to be permitted to supply a "Brandeis" brief.

You may view this table and the briefs, here: http://michellawyers.com/guncasetracker/perutavsandiego/
 
Attention should also be given to the amici letter from attorney Allan Mayer, who is requesting to be permitted to supply a "Brandeis" brief.
Click to expand...

I am paying attention to it. I hope that this is a first rough draft, because I can't see a competent attorney submitting a letter for judicial consideration containing pen-and-ink corrections, misspelling the name of a US Supreme Court Justice, and citing Wikipedia as a source for reliable information.

Color me :confused::confused::confused:
 
I hope that this is a first rough draft, because I can't see a competent attorney submitting a letter for judicial consideration containing pen-and-ink corrections, misspelling the name of a US Supreme Court Justice, and citing Wikipedia as a source for reliable information.
Click to expand...
No kidding!!! :eek:
 
Like Richards, The defendants filed a 28J letter on the CA2 Kachalsky case. Here is Paul Clement's 28J reply.

Orals for this and the other 2 cases (Richards and Baker) will be heard tomorrow.
 

Attachments

... there are three different and separate audio streams available from the 9th Circuit's oral arguments this morning:

Edward Peruta, et al. v. County of San Diego, et al. found here: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2012/12/06/10-56971.wma (Paul Clement for Appellant)

Christopher Baker v. Louis Kealoha, et al. found here: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2012/12/06/12-16258.wma

Adam Richards, et al. v. Ed Prieto, et al. found here: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2012/12/06/11-16255.wma (Alan Gura for Appellant)
 
Since Librarian beat me to the punch, there is no longer any need to upload the files. Be warned, this is not a permanent location, therefore you should download these soonest, as the court will move these files in a few days.

Please direct your comments to the proper thread.

Comments on the Peruta case should be made in this thread.

Comments on the Richards case should be made here: http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=451451

Comments on the Baker case should be made here: http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=460887
 
There is a potential that this case, and the two others argued with it in December 2012 (Richards v. Prieto and the Hawaii case) may be decided by the end of the year. There have been developments in other cases that led to this inference. First, there is a case called Nichols v. Governor Brown in which Charles Nichols is challenging California's open carry ban. He filed a motion for preliminary injunction (which was unsurprisingly denied by the trial court) and he appealed to the Ninth circuit. The NRA moved to stay his appeal pending the determination of these other cases, and today that motion was granted over opposition by Nichols and the State--and even though an appeal of a denial of a preliminary injunction is normally accorded some priority. Further, the NRA has a case pending against Sheriff Hutchins (Orange County) and that case was stayed today as well pending these appeals. Finally, the Ninth consolidated a fourth case--a criminal case involving the 2A, setting these up for a grand opinion on the standard of review, an opinion that (as Nordyke v. King was initially designed to do) will control the consideration of the various other case. There is some suggestion that Justice Kosinski, who was bitterly disappointed when Nordyke settled on the eve of its determination, is pushing the agenda.
 
I wonder if Moore influenced the decision.

I think it is good news, so anti-gunners have to pursue things like may-issue, capacity restrictions and micro-stamping as ways to try to snuff out people's ability to exercise the Second Amendment.
 
"Doesn't this mean we have a circuit split between CA9 - Peruta and CA4 -Woollard ?"
Click to expand...
The court openly sides with Moore and eviscerates the 3rd, 4th, and 5th circuits for faulty or incomplete inquiry, inconsistency with Heller, etc. They outright announce a split in the text of the ruling.

This ruling is chock-full of useful nuggets that support our view of the right. Kudos to this panel for doing it's job. This is a great day.
 
Oh - hell - yeah.

Holy crap...Cali just went shall-issue.

SO DOES HAWAII by the way! 9th Circuit. So are Guam and Saipan, and wow is THAT gonna get weird :).

OK. So...what's next?

I understand that this is a flat order to the lower court rather than "set it for a new trial" so this case is done UNLESS the state appeals it to the full 9th (en banc) or the US Supremes.

Now...if the state appeals to the Supremes, I'd bet they'd take it. There's now a circuit split the size of the grand canyon between this and rulings from NY/NJ/MD. This is actually bigger than Moore (7th Circuit that forced IL to issue) because Moore didn't actually specify whether IL could go shall-issue or may-issue. We got shall-issue in IL politically, not via court action. That's why there were pro-may-issue decisions on the east coast after Moore came out.

What else...California also bans open carry. Is it legal to open-carry in San Francisco(!) right now? I don't know. If, tomorrow, somebody were to walk into the SFPD and try to apply and get denied the blank form, would they then be OK open carrying? Ummmm...dunno. I'm not advising it *yet* but it could come to that if the stonewalling gets crazy enough.

Will this panel in Paruta stay the decision to allow for appeals to en banc or Supremes? Ah...probably...but who knows?

Holy...crap.

Oh wow, one more question: there's another case just like Peruta still pending - Gura's case out of Yolo County, right? The one that used to include Sacramento until they folded? Well is that moot? One three-judge panel can't override another, right? That was my understanding...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top