Peruta v. County of San Diego (CCW Case)

[Metaterra]

All of this is set out in the Court's General Order, which is available from www.ca9.uscourts.gov

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/rules/general_orders/general_orders11_11.pdf

A judge has until March 6 to ask for a vote and with that call, he must submit a supporting memorandum. We will know if that happens as the mandate won't issue. "If a stop clock or a sua sponte call is made, in a case where no petition for rehearing en banc or petition for panel rehearing has been filed, the judge who makes the call shall in writing or by electronic mail direct the Clerk of Court or any person the Clerk may designate to stay the mandate and notify the panel."
"Upon receipt of a timely sua sponte en banc call, the author of the panel opinion or the Clerk of Court upon the request of the En Banc Coordinator shall ordinarily enter an order directing the parties to file simultaneous briefs within 21 days setting forth their respective positions on whether the matter should be reheard en banc. If the En Banc Coordinator orders that no supplemental briefing will be filed, the parties will be notified of the sua sponte en banc call."

I joined MD Shooters because I discovered I liked things that go bang. I told my wife last night that I would never have imagined that would lead to reading (and largely understanding) sentences like ""If a stop clock or a sua sponte call is made, in a case where no petition for rehearing en banc or petition for panel rehearing has been filed, the judge who makes the call shall in writing or by electronic mail direct the Clerk of Court or any person the Clerk may designate to stay the mandate and notify the panel", and caring a lot about what that means.

I am truly impressed by the level of education, combined with the generosity of spirit to explain all of this to us, exhibited by the lawyers (and doctors with perfect hair) in these forums. Thanks very much.

 

[Al Norris]

I now think the tip-off was the day before, when Orange County revised their procedures to accept self defense as good cause.

This most likely will moot the case, McKay v. Hutchinson (Sheriff of O.C.), which is before the 9th and is stayed, pending the outcome of Peruta, Richards and Baker. This case was filed by the CRPA on much the same grounds as Pertua.

 

[wjackcooper]

Two observations re Gore's letter:

1. He does not admit the basis for the ruling was his "policy" and claims the court struck down California's requirement of "good cause."

2. A petition for writ of certiorari (90 days) is not precluded.

Regards
Jack

 

[Haides]

Funny coincidence that a HS friend of mine posted this today. He's a fellow Texan, but fairly nonpolitical, for a Texan, yet he still posted it.

Random note, I took a "which US president are you" quiz yesterday and got James Madison, with the quote "A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive, will not long be safe companions to liberty."

Hell yeah.

 

[esqappellate]

I joined MD Shooters because I discovered I liked things that go bang. I told my wife last night that I would never have imagined that would lead to reading (and largely understanding) sentences like ""If a stop clock or a sua sponte call is made, in a case where no petition for rehearing en banc or petition for panel rehearing has been filed, the judge who makes the call shall in writing or by electronic mail direct the Clerk of Court or any person the Clerk may designate to stay the mandate and notify the panel", and caring a lot about what that means.

I am truly impressed by the level of education, combined with the generosity of spirit to explain all of this to us, exhibited by the lawyers (and doctors with perfect hair) in these forums. Thanks very much.

Thanks!

 

[teratos]

I am truly impressed by the level of education, combined with the generosity of spirit to explain all of this to us, exhibited by the lawyers (and doctors with perfect hair) in these forums. Thanks very much.

Thanks.

I feel the same way. My understanding of the Courts in particular was abysmal just a few short years ago. While not a legal scholar by any stretch of the imagination, I am grateful for the free and valuable education I have received here at MDSU. The free exchange of information and the willingness of those with a great knowledge base to dumb it down and share it with the rest of us is what makes this place great.

 

[rwbow1969]

Thanks.

I feel the same way. My understanding of the Courts in particular was abysmal just a few short years ago. While not a legal scholar by any stretch of the imagination, I am grateful for the free and valuable education I have received here at MDSU. The free exchange of information and the willingness of those with a great knowledge base to dumb it down and share it with the rest of us is what makes this place great.

 

[md_rick_o]

Question. It was talked about the cost of the case going forward would be on the sheriff and county. If this goes forth with the sua sponte who is on the hook for the cost?

(ha i used a legal term in a sentence)

 

[swinokur]

good on you counselor !!

 

[TxAggie]

Random note, I took a "which US president are you" quiz yesterday and got James Madison, with the quote "A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive, will not long be safe companions to liberty."

Hell yeah.

Can you link the quiz?

 

[Kinetic]

The free exchange of information and the willingness of those with a great knowledge base to dumb it down and share it with the rest of us is what makes this place great.

+100.

This thread (and others) allow us to follow these cases guided by experienced attorneys and other commentators, all at the click of a mouse. Thanks for the effort guys. Will be looking forward to the disposition of all of these cases.

MDS-What a great place.

 

[Haides]

Can you link the quiz?

I posted it in the Drive-by thread, to avoid further off topic-ness.

http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=135685

 

[Hit and Run]

NRA alert says San Diego will NOT appeal ruling.

 

[esqappellate]

Question. It was talked about the cost of the case going forward would be on the sheriff and county. If this goes forth with the sua sponte who is on the hook for the cost?

(ha i used a legal term in a sentence)

SD is the defendant to a suit brought under Section 1983. A losing defendant pays the prevailing plaintiff reasonable fees and costs under Section 1988. The losing defendant pays his own fees.

 

[paulstitz]

NRA alert says San Diego will NOT appeal ruling.

San Diego Sheriff Bill Gore will not but state Attorney General Kamala Harris or the court itself could still intervene.

http://bearingarms.com/san-diego-will-not-appeal-9th-circuit-court-decision/

 

[K-Romulus]

San Diego Sheriff Bill Gore will not but state Attorney General Kamala Harris or the court itself could still intervene.



http://bearingarms.com/san-diego-will-not-appeal-9th-circuit-court-decision/

That could be the key to understanding the behind the scenes maneuvering-- having the CA AG take up the case from here on out would let the SD sheriff leave the picture.

However, I am not sure how the State AG would have standing to request the en banc hearing OR the cert petition. I haven't read the original complaint, but I understand that the plaintiffs were challenging the local interpretation of the state statute, not the constitutionality of the state statute. Wouldn't that tactic preclude the state AG from claiming she needs to "defend" the statute?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jrwhitt]

I don't believe the State is a party to the suit and as such does not have standing to intervene. The law itself was not challenged, just the as applied policies of the Sheriff.

(Good cause still is required - but they must now accept self defense as good cause).

The law is still in place - just toothless in this one regard.

 

[swinokur]

SD is the defendant, not the state of CA.

 

[esqappellate]

San Diego Sheriff Bill Gore will not but state Attorney General Kamala Harris or the court itself could still intervene.

http://bearingarms.com/san-diego-will-not-appeal-9th-circuit-court-decision/

The court could order en banc sua sponte, for sure. The AG would have to seek leave to intervene at this late stage. Tough to do. Here is the test:

To intervene under Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a)(2), the [intervenor] must show that (1) “it has a significant protectable interest relating to the ... subject of the action;” (2) “the disposition of the action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede ... [its] ability to protect its interest;” (3) “the application is timely;” and (4) “the existing parties may not adequately represent ... [its] interest.” United States v. Alisal Water Corp., 370 F.3d 915, 919 (9th Cir.2004).

Since the California statute was not invalidated, it would be hard to show that California (represented by the AG) has "a significant protectable interest" in his litigation

 

[K-Romulus]

SD is the defendant, not the state of CA.

That is true as a matter if pure fact, but now that I think about it the dissent wasted a lot of printer toner explaining its view that CA *should* have been considered a party to the case. . . Something along the lines of "the constitutionality of the state statute is being challenged" and therefore the plaintiff should have followed some special Fed Rule of Civil Procedure that required him to notify the CA AG of the complaint.

Maybe this angle could be used by the CA AG?

My take was that the dissent was mischaracterizing the as-applied challenge, which was only attacking how SD was *interpreting* the state law, not the law itself.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk