Richards v. Prieto appealed to 9th Circuit

Al, Thanks for trying to clear things up for me, but I remain in the dark. I don't think I confused Peruta with Richards at this point, at least,

Essentially, how can Gore have violated a right to carry concealed, if that right didn't exist at the time the permit was denied, but later arose as a result of the open carry prohibition effective in 2011?
 
Essentially, how can Gore have violated a right to carry concealed,
Click to expand...

The way I understand it, the right(to carry in some form open or concealed but not specifically concealed) existed, but Gore didn't know it did. While according to Al (Unloaded) Open Carry was legal, Heller all but mocked the idea that Unloaded was sufficient for self defense- the whole must be unloaded, locked up, etc. part.

It seems a bit philosophical, but as I've understood from these guys explaining it, the rights exist whether we know/recognize/codify them or not. For example, we ratified the Bill of Rights in 1791. However, according to this philosophy, we still had a right to free speech in 1775. That's why, from time time, you'll see people say the rights are enshrined, or recognized, etc. but not granted by the Bill of Rights.

So had nothing changed, the 9th MIGHT have said unloaded open carry doesn't meet the core right of self defense, and still held the same regarding Gore's Good Cause policy.
 
Dreaming100Straight said:
Essentially, how can Gore have violated a right to carry concealed, if that right didn't exist at the time the permit was denied, but later arose as a result of the open carry prohibition effective in 2011?
Click to expand...

Open carry was banned in CA around 1965. Heller made clear the right is to a functional firearm. UOC is some politician's drug-addled creation.
 
The right to bear arms existed even before loaded open carry or unloaded open carry was banned, but Peruta found that this right could be provided if open carry was available (as long as it wasn't regulated to the point of non-existence), and if it was provided Cali needn't provide for concealed carry.

Perhaps Gore's denial of good cause was continuing when unloaded open carry was banned.
 
Dreaming100Straight said:
Perhaps Gore's denial of good cause was continuing when unloaded open carry was banned.
Click to expand...

UOC was banned in CA about three years ago, and Gore was certainly denying permits before the Peruta decision came down, so yes, the above is factual. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make...
 
Simply that whether or not one acted validly is usually determined by the law in effect at that time. It appears that the original denial was constitutionally valid, but the enactment barring unloaded open carry made his continuing denial unconstitutional.
 
Well, the March 6th deadline came and went without any judges on the 9th Circuit requesting en banc review.

The Yolo County sheriff's department has until the 19th if they want to ask for review. Beyond that, only Ms. Harris' motion can trigger it.
 
Well, the March 6th deadline came and went without any judges on the 9th Circuit requesting en banc review.
Click to expand...

Cool!

The Yolo County sheriff's department has until the 19th if they want to ask for review.
Click to expand...

Legally, sure, but the reality is, if we weren't going to get support from ONE judge for an en banc review of Peruta, we aren't going to see a voting majority for Richards.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying "the tea leaves appear to say no way Jose".

Beyond that, only Ms. Harris' motion can trigger it.
Click to expand...

Well only if the three-judge panel that decided Peruta and Richards agrees. We'll get genetically modified aerodynamic pork before that happens.

Harris was really trying to get one of the 9th Circuit judges to put Peruta into en banc status. We now know that failed.

Oh heck yeah. We're going to see Peruta stand and take effect, preserving the huge gaping 12ga-sized blast hole of a circuit split in time for the Supremes to decide on Drake.

Dominos are falling just like we need 'em to here.
 
Harris was really trying to get one of the 9th Circuit judges to put Peruta into en banc status. We now know that failed.
Click to expand...

Don't forget the theory that the 9th wants Harris to apply for Cert, and so her getting standing, but denied en banc is still possible, not?

For that matter, if she's denied standing, why can't she still apply for cert, and claim an additional error in not giving her standing?

Dominos are falling just like we need 'em to here.
Click to expand...
I think I'd like Peruta up there with Drake, though I suppose if Peruta is part of the case, there is no case because the size of the split has disappeared. So we're left with just being able to cite it as a roadmap.
 
It looks like extensions to file petitions were granted the Brady Campaign and the State, those extensions extended the deadline to make a call, as I read the rules, until 7 days after the new deadline for filing petitions.
 
those extensions extended the deadline to make a call, as I read the rules, until 7 days after the new deadline for filing petitions.
Click to expand...
That is my understanding as well. However, with pending requests for review, it is a moot point. The court can simply grant one of the requests . . . so sua sponte request is unnecessary.
 
Last edited:
Dreaming100Straight said:
It appears that the original denial was constitutionally valid, but the enactment barring unloaded open carry made his continuing denial unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Heller Decision said:
It held that the Second Amendment protects
an individual right to possess firearms and that the city’s
total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that
firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when
necessary for self-defense, violated that right.
Click to expand...

The function of a firearm is to discharge projectiles. If unloaded, it cannot perform that function.

I agree many courts, laden with anti-civil rights types, will hide behind pedantry as you appear to be hiding. The inability of SCOTUS to cope with it's workload, and reluctance to take 2A cases in general gives additional boldness to those anti-civil rights pedants and it therefore makes UOC a politically viable, if still clearly unconstitutional, option.

I do agree with you that no deadline has yet passed wrt en banc calls. Depending on how one reads the various bits of information out there, we might be waiting for a number of weeks yet. The best timeline, afaict, from Librarian is something like:

Here is the link to that order dated 3/5/2014:
http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...-Intervene.pdf

So this translates to:

1) Waiting for parties (6000 word max) responses by 3/26/2014. (or did I miscount?)

Response will address:
a) Motion to Intervene by State of California
b) Motion for Leave to Intervene by Brady Campaign
c) Petition for Rehearing En Blanc by Amici Curiae California Police Chiefs’ Association and California Peace Officers’ Association insofar as the Petition is a motion to intervene


2) Unknown wait for court to rule if they have standing

3) ???
 
Last edited:
That is my understanding as well. However, with pending requests for review, it is a moot point. The court can simply grant one of th requests . . . so sua sponte request is necessary.
Click to expand...

Did you mean a ss call is not necessary if intervention is allowed, in which case a petition will be filed?
 
Did you mean a ss call is not necessary if intervention is allowed, in which case a petition will be filed?
Click to expand...
Yes. that was a typo that i just corrected, thanks.

I believe a petition is already filed from the CAL AG, pending a grant or denial of standing to intervene.
 
Today, the defendant, Sheriff Ed Prieto has filed his petition for rehearing en banc.

I've only skimmed the file, but it is essentially regurgitating what has all been said before. The file is a 10.5mb scanned pdf and is much too large to upload.
 
I think that's a non-issue. The judges of the 9th Circuit aren't total idiots. They're either going to approve Peruta for en banc or not. If not, they won't approve Richards.

This is just a PR move on Prieto's part.
 
Well, it might change the dynamic the 9th feels wrt the motions to intervene in Peruta, or wrt granting en banc (if the motions are granted).

If the judges on the 9th for some reason feel it's a bit cheesy to have the AG come in at the 11th hour, but they did feel an en banc was reasonable, but maybe didn't want to show their anti-2A stance too blatantly or didn't want to disrespect O'Scanny by voting for one themselves, Prieto has now given the judges on the 9th an "out".

So, they can slap the AG down, and / or save face by pretending to respect O'Scanny's decision, yet still get the case en banc. I don't know if this dynamic exists or is reasonable or what, but it exists in the realm of possibility.

My immediate concern (I think Peruta is a winner before SCOTUS eventually) is getting a virtual shall-issue environment here in CA -- I want the mandate staying Peruta lifted, and I hope that if motions to intervene are denied or en banc is denied in Peruta, then the mandate will be lifted, regardless of what's happening in Prieto.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top