Peruta/Richards going en banc

[randian]

The problem with Clement is he was asked point blank whether self defense is sufficient good cause, and he didn't outright say yes. He hedged, and that's all this 2A-hostile panel needs to hang him.

 

[press1280]

The problem with Clement is he was asked point blank whether self defense is sufficient good cause, and he didn't outright say yes. He hedged, and that's all this 2A-hostile panel needs to hang him.

But Gura did not make any concession (that I heard). That shouldn't handicap his case, if the panel does take it as a concession.

 

[Kharn]

The problem with Clement is he was asked point blank whether self defense is sufficient good cause, and he didn't outright say yes. He hedged, and that's all this 2A-hostile panel needs to hang him.

With 8 D vs 3 R, such absolutism won't get you far.

 

[kcbrown]

With 8 D vs 3 R, such absolutism won't get you far.

With 8 D vs 3 R, there is nothing you can do at that level that will get you anywhere, save for arranging to maximize the chance that SCOTUS will hear the case. The Ds know this but are in nearly complete control of the process, as it's the decision that is very nearly the only thing that matters for that and they are in complete control of that.

As such, the only influence we have on the chance of the Supreme Court granting cert is through the arguments we make. For actually securing the right AS A REAL RIGHT, conceding that self defense is not itself always sufficient to "justify" carry in public gets us nowhere. If the claims of what Clement conceded are accurate (I have not listened to the orals myself) and I'm right about the implications of concessions during orals, then Clement blew the ability to secure carry as a right out of the water, and Peruta is now merely about how much of a privilege carry in public is.

Which raises the question: why would the rights-supporting members of the Court bother to grant cert to a case that can no longer be used as a vehicle to secure the right as a right? If the Court grants cert and our side "wins", then carry will forever be a privilege, even if it's less of one than "progressives" would prefer, precisely because our side foreclosed that option through our concessions.

Fortunately, we still have Richards and Baker...




(Sent with Tapatalk, so apologies for the lackluster formatting)

 

[randian]

With 8 D vs 3 R, such absolutism won't get you far.

If you know they won't give you an inch you lose nothing by asking for a mile.

 

[Inigoes]

With 8 D vs 3 R, there is nothing you can do at that level that will get you anywhere, save for arranging to maximize the chance that SCOTUS will hear the case. The Ds know this but are in nearly complete control of the process, as it's the decision that is very nearly the only thing that matters for that and they are in complete control of that.

As such, the only influence we have on the chance of the Supreme Court granting cert is through the arguments we make. For actually securing the right AS A REAL RIGHT, conceding that self defense is not itself always sufficient to "justify" carry in public gets us nowhere. If the claims of what Clement conceded are accurate (I have not listened to the orals myself) and I'm right about the implications of concessions during orals, then Clement blew the ability to secure carry as a right out of the water, and Peruta is now merely about how much of a privilege carry in public is.

Which raises the question: why would the rights-supporting members of the Court bother to grant cert to a case that can no longer be used as a vehicle to secure the right as a right? If the Court grants cert and our side "wins", then carry will forever be a privilege, even if it's less of one than "progressives" would prefer, precisely because our side foreclosed that option through our concessions.

Fortunately, we still have Richards and Baker...

(Sent with Tapatalk, so apologies for the lackluster formatting)

Richards was argued with Peruta

Baker is still in the bullpen.

And a slew (approximately 10) of other cases folowing them in the 9CA.

 

[kcbrown]

Richards was argued with Peruta

Baker is still in the bullpen.

And a slew (approximately 10) of other cases folowing them in the 9CA.

Yes, but the concessions were given only by Peruta counsel. Hence, they impact only Peruta as regards SCOTUS. While those cases were considered during the same proceedings in the 9th Circuit, they remain separate cases and will require separate petitions for cert.

If we were talking about a functional circuit court, then the concessions might impact only Peruta there as well. But as we're talking about a circuit court that made up its mind about the case even before the ink dried on the decision to grant en banc review, the concessions don't matter there. After all, why should the 9th Circuit craft a decision that's any different than those issued by the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Circuits when it doesn't have to? Why should it limit discretion at all when it doesn't have to? It already knows with a pretty high degree of certainty that SCOTUS won't review its decision if it looks enough like those others precisely because those were denied cert and because Jackson was denied cert as well (which logically means that SCOTUS won't grant any carry case since the legal "danger" is much higher there than it was for Jackson).

 

[Inigoes]

Yes, but the concessions were given only by Peruta counsel. Hence, they impact only Peruta as regards SCOTUS. While those cases were considered during the same proceedings in the 9th Circuit, they remain separate cases and will require separate petitions for cert.

If we were talking about a functional circuit court, then the concessions might impact only Peruta there as well. But as we're talking about a circuit court that made up its mind about the case even before the ink dried on the decision to grant en banc review, the concessions don't matter there. After all, why should the 9th Circuit craft a decision that's any different than those issued by the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Circuits when it doesn't have to? Why should it limit discretion at all when it doesn't have to? It already knows with a pretty high degree of certainty that SCOTUS won't review its decision if it looks enough like those others precisely because those were denied cert and because Jackson was denied cert as well (which logically means that SCOTUS won't grant any carry case since the legal "danger" is much higher there than it was for Jackson).

Peruta is too messy at this point. Heck, it is still unknown if CA will be given intervenor status. The panel will have to do judicial gymnastics to come up with a sound argument to grant the status.

Richards is clean and tidy, without complications Harris created.

 

[777GSOTB]

With 8 D vs 3 R, there is nothing you can do at that level that will get you anywhere, save for arranging to maximize the chance that SCOTUS will hear the case. The Ds know this but are in nearly complete control of the process, as it's the decision that is very nearly the only thing that matters for that and they are in complete control of that.

As such, the only influence we have on the chance of the Supreme Court granting cert is through the arguments we make. For actually securing the right AS A REAL RIGHT, conceding that self defense is not itself always sufficient to "justify" carry in public gets us nowhere. If the claims of what Clement conceded are accurate (I have not listened to the orals myself) and I'm right about the implications of concessions during orals, then Clement blew the ability to secure carry as a right out of the water, and Peruta is now merely about how much of a privilege carry in public is.

Which raises the question: why would the rights-supporting members of the Court bother to grant cert to a case that can no longer be used as a vehicle to secure the right as a right? If the Court grants cert and our side "wins", then carry will forever be a privilege, even if it's less of one than "progressives" would prefer, precisely because our side foreclosed that option through our concessions.

Fortunately, we still have Richards and Baker...




(Sent with Tapatalk, so apologies for the lackluster formatting)

Great response to that statement....This is what was said in oral arguments:

Judge: But under your theory, any self defense should be justifiable good cause.

Clement: Well,...No, I don't think so. We take this case as it lies...

He's also miss reading Nunn v. The State of Georgia. The court never specifically mentioned that if the state allowed carry one way over another then the statute was constitutional as it didn't prohibit carry altogether. The court in Nunn let the statute prohibition stand on concealed carry but said that the prohibition on open carry was unconstitutional. Even though there was an exemption in the statute that allowed one to conceal carry a Horseman's pistol. Also, I do believe that there were no licensing requirements in the 1840's, so it's clearly not appropriate to suggest that if today, licensed concealed carry is allowed, then open carry can be prohibited. I doubt that Scalia's cite to Nunn had that reasoning in mind.

 

[press1280]

Peruta is too messy at this point. Heck, it is still unknown if CA will be given intervenor status. The panel will have to do judicial gymnastics to come up with a sound argument to grant the status.

Richards is clean and tidy, without complications Harris created.

I'm just not seeing the intervenor status as a big deal, in fact it'll probably help us.

 

[Kharn]

Could Harris appeal to the Supreme Court if intervenor status is denied before they release the decision?

 

[press1280]

Could Harris appeal to the Supreme Court if intervenor status is denied before they release the decision?

I think so. I would also think it'll be denied.

 

[esqappellate]

I think so. I would also think it'll be denied.

I have little doubt that the court will grant intervenor status where as here it is unopposed

 

[cad68m_m]

NRA-ILA summary of Peruta as of June 20, 2015

https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...eard-by-federal-appellate-court-in-california

 

[Peaceful John]

http://legalinsurrection.com/

SNIP Today, the Supreme Court handed down a ruling that stands to drastically change the relationship farmers have with the federal government.

The order in Horne, et al. v. Department of Agriculture turned on its head the idea that the government can seize an entire “bundle” of property rights, yet avoid classifying that seizure as a taking as long as they allow the original owners to retain some manner of interest in the property. SNIP

Perhaps Peruta will find its way to SCOTUS. I found the above hopeful.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

http://legalinsurrection.com/

SNIP Today, the Supreme Court handed down a ruling that stands to drastically change the relationship farmers have with the federal government.

The order in Horne, et al. v. Department of Agriculture turned on its head the idea that the government can seize an entire “bundle” of property rights, yet avoid classifying that seizure as a taking as long as they allow the original owners to retain some manner of interest in the property. SNIP

Perhaps Peruta will find its way to SCOTUS. I found the above hopeful.

This should also carry weight with regards to all "arms" as well.

 

[Inigoes]

Just found a 28j letter from Alan Gura answering a question from Judge Smith

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...Notice-of-Supplemental-Authority-Rule-28j.pdf

 

[press1280]

Just found a 28j letter from Alan Gura answering a question from Judge Smith

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...Notice-of-Supplemental-Authority-Rule-28j.pdf

So it would seem to help Gura & Clement's cases. There shouldn't be an UOC issue to muddy things.

 

[tomh]

So, please interpret for me...

Just found a 28j letter from Alan Gura answering a question from Judge Smith

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...Notice-of-Supplemental-Authority-Rule-28j.pdf

Does that mean Gura is asking the judge to rule based on the newly enacted law and not the law that was in effect for the first ruling?

 

[Kharn]

Yes