What's Up with Peruta?

[Princetonian58 53]

There is little doubt that the three month delay on any action on this case was spent by the liberal majority of the Ninth Circuit Court of,Communists whipping together votes until they were certain they could overturn the panel. In the event of a reversal en banc there is no way SCOTUS grants certiorari given the conservatives failure to make it happen in Zrake.

[Spartiati 63]

Simply unreal, but not at all surprised.  The defendent in the case didn't even want to appeal and yet the ninth circuit pulls this crap.  I agree with others no chance here en banc, and very little chance for cert given Drake unless there is something about this case that better defined than Drake.  Guess we'll have to wait another 2 years for a close on this one.

[springfieldxds 0]

correct me if im wrong but i believe this has a strong chance of being reviewed by scotus regardless of the en banc decision, mainly because Paul Clement is a leading attorney for the defendants, and we all know Paul is someone scotus views highly of, a petition from him in my opinion has a better chance of getting granted than a petition from Gura, which could easily explain why scotus turned down drake, scotus saw peruta moving its way up to them and in the end decided they wanted Clement to argue the case 

[mipafox 438]

correct me if im wrong but i believe this has a strong chance of being reviewed by scotus regardless of the en banc decision, mainly because Paul Clement is a leading attorney for the defendants, and we all know Paul is someone scotus views highly of, a petition from him in my opinion has a better chance of getting granted than a petition from Gura, which could easily explain why scotus turned down drake, scotus saw peruta moving its way up to them and in the end decided they wanted Clement to argue the case 

Is there a split on Justifiable Need at this point?

 

The original Peruta ruling has been thrown out. Presumably the new ruling will say it is fine. Are there other Circuit rulings that say different on that specific point? Justifiable Need?

[maintenanceguy 510]

If I'm right:

NJ's law was ruled constitutional by 3rd circuit.

MD's law was ruled constitutional by 4th circuit.

CA's law ruled unconstititonal by 9th circuit.   But that's going to change now.  Seems like there is no split and no incentive for SCOTUS to review it.

 

I'm very discouraged now.  Of the 4 parts of the country challenging the denial of rights, two were winning.  Now none are.  A huge step backward.

[springfieldxds 0]

Is there a split on Justifiable Need at this point?

 

The original Peruta ruling has been thrown out. Presumably the new ruling will say it is fine. Are there other Circuit rulings that say different on that specific point? Justifiable Need?

Palmer remains a split at this point, also peruta was a very accurate thought out ruling by a judge who is very respected, when the en banc reverses O’Scannlains well thought out ruling its defiantly going to raise some eyebrows in scotus about the dog and pony show the 9th is pulling, also i thought scotus is famous for reversing 9th decisions, that is when they agree to hear them 

 

lets also not forget that its thought scotus turned down Drake because the NJ supreme court agreed to hear a similar case but miraculously changed their minds when scotus denied certiorari in Drake, that was like a big middle finger to scotus which im sure they are not happy about, they held Drake for a few weeks so there is definitely high interest in hearing a carry case, i truly believe they want Clement in front of them though for such a delicate case 

[maintenanceguy 510]

In Heller, SCOTUS wrote that the Second Amendment “guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation” and that “central to” this right is “the inherent right of self-defense”.

 

I'm not sure we're going to get more than that out of them.  Many, many people are comfortable with the ownership of guns.  But getting 5 justices to write specifically that we also have the right to carry them is not as easy a hurdle to overcome.

[jackandjill 683]

http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/06/mcdonald-thomas-concurrence-on-privileges-or-immunities/

 

......................

State and local jurisdictions, moreover, sometimes place very onerous administrative obstacles in the path of those who desire to keep or carry firearms. Such obstructionism may become more intense in those jurisdictions that would like to impose outright gun bans that the courts will no longer uphold. Courts will surely face numerous challenges from citizens who claim that such administrative obstacles impermissibly burden the underlying substantive right, and it is not yet clear how such challenges will be resolved.

.......................

 

And thats where NJ, MD, CA are... fits squarely into this paragraph..

[jackandjill 683]

Looking at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordyke_v._King#Second_En_banc_review

it seems like Ninth Circuit is notorious for reversing on En Banc review.

[diamondd817 827]

Looking at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordyke_v._King#Second_En_banc_review

it seems like Ninth Circuit is notorious for reversing on En Banc review.

It will be reversed. There is no other outcome.

[Spartiati 63]

It will be reversed. There is no other outcome.

I agree. No reason to hear it again to arrive at the same outcome. It will be reversed. I am sure the opinion is already written.

[SJG 253]

Irrespective of what the outcome is in Peruta, it will have zero impact in NJ. The only real hope for us in the Courts is if Scotus eventually grants cert in either Peruta or another case and hands us a Second Amendment victory. It is not likely that the N.J. Supreme Court will grant review in a State case anytime soon. The State Legislative option is not really viable with the Dems in control here.On the Federal level, Nationwide CCW reciprocity legislation finally has some legs, and if they can get a bill through as an amendment to something the President must sign, our chances are brighter.

[n4p226r 105]

Irrespective of what the outcome is in Peruta, it will have zero impact in NJ. The only real hope for us in the Courts is if Scotus eventually grants cert in either Peruta or another case and hands us a Second Amendment victory. It is not likely that the N.J. Supreme Court will grant review in a State case anytime soon. The State Legislative option is not really viable with the Dems in control here.On the Federal level, Nationwide CCW reciprocity legislation finally has some legs, and if they can get a bill through as an amendment to something the President must sign, our chances are brighter.

they don't care about nationwide ccw reciprocity.  if they did, the could easily attach it to any of the must sign laws they sent to obama. they don't and they won't.

[fumanchu182 23]

they don't care about nationwide ccw reciprocity.  if they did, the could easily attach it to any of the must sign laws they sent to obama. they don't and they won't.

 

Because the President would veto it instantly.  It's a game of cat and mouse except when the mouse has veto power.  In regards to the 9th and 7th vs the 2nd, 3rd and 4th circuits if the 9th reverses the decision then SCOTUS will be less inclined to hear any case.  Given that we don't know who the ten judges and the chief justice will be in the review it's really a craps shoot at this point.  It's 50/50.  For those of us in the jurisdictions where the states don't recognize the right to carry it will ultimately mean you will have to move or become cattle.

[raz-0 1,259]

I agree. No reason to hear it again to arrive at the same outcome. It will be reversed. I am sure the opinion is already written.

 

Well there's the outside chance the en banc process is started as a delaying tactic. It is a possibility, although I agree that in most likelihood, they intend to reverse it. 

[n4p226r 105]

Because the President would veto it instantly.  It's a game of cat and mouse except when the mouse has veto power.  In regards to the 9th and 7th vs the 2nd, 3rd and 4th circuits if the 9th reverses the decision then SCOTUS will be less inclined to hear any case.  Given that we don't know who the ten judges and the chief justice will be in the review it's really a craps shoot at this point.  It's 50/50.  For those of us in the jurisdictions where the states don't recognize the right to carry it will ultimately mean you will have to move or become cattle.

they just voted to fun DHS didnt they.  they could have attached this to that and the president would have signed it.  

[Alex V 99]

Well... That sucks.  I honestly thought we had a chance with this one.  It would take a couple of years to make its way to SCOTUS but I thought there was a chance.  Damn.

[fumanchu182 23]

they just voted to fun DHS didnt they.  they could have attached this to that and the president would have signed it.  

I don't believe so, I believe he would have vetoed the entire thing and sent it back.

[mipafox 438]

He signed carry in federal parks.

 

You could get him to sing something IMO. I just don't know what prize would be large enough for him.

[maintenanceguy 510]

The president is not worried about people carrying handguns.  That isn't a threat to the system.  The president wants to ban rifles - that's where the power of the people lies.

 

Attach it to a funding bill and he'll sign it.  The Republicans want Obama to veto it so they an use it to prove that the Democrats and their next candidate hate freedom.

[CMJeepster 2,778]

"Gun rights in California: court to hear another showdown"  http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_28317648/gun-rights-california-court-hear-another-showdown

[Princetonian58 53]

Here is the link to the audio/video feed of the hearing, to begin this evening at 6:30 EDT.

 

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_video.php?pk_vid=0000007833

[CMJeepster 2,778]

"Federal court to rule on restrictive concealed weapons permits"  http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-83800074/

[n4p226r 105]

I listened. Once again I have no idea how we will lose either case. Once again I'm prepared to be disappointed. Surprisingly almost everyone on both sides agreed the only way to read Heller is that the 2a exists outside of your home. The guy arguing for the sheriff in the Richards case was a huge idiot.

 

 

Also, are ccw permits in Cali good statewide or are they banned in places much like NYC

[CMJeepster 2,778]

Wasn't NJ's attorney also a dope? See how that worked out? FML...

[maintenanceguy 510]

The NJ Assistant AG who argued Drake was terrible.  NJ's whole case was an embarassment.  She had noting to stand on.  The judges were handing her made up reasons to use in her arguments like "long standing tradition".  They avoided talking to the plaintiff because his arguments were solid and made sense.  They ultimately chose to use the "intermediate scrutiny" standard, a standard SCOTUS has said has no place in rights listed in the constitution. 

 

The result?  Two of the three judges made a ruling they knew violated the constitution and previous rulings by SCOTUS.  The third judge wrote a scathing dissent that actually made sense.  Nobody who heard the case would have believed that NJ had a leg to stand on. 

[njpilot 671]

When you have corrupt, treasonous judges, it doesn't matter how good your case is and how bad the state's is.

[mipafox 438]

I listened. Once again I have no idea how we will lose either case. Once again I'm prepared to be disappointed. Surprisingly almost everyone on both sides agreed the only way to read Heller is that the 2a exists outside of your home. The guy arguing for the sheriff in the Richards case was a huge idiot.

 

 

Also, are ccw permits in Cali good statewide or are they banned in places much like NYC

 

They are statewide. Most counties get them, a few don't, but if you have one you can carry in those counties (and municipalities), too.

[CMJeepster 2,778]

Forbes:  "Is This The Gun Case The U.S. Supreme Court Will Take?"  http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2015/06/22/is-this-the-gun-case-the-u-s-supreme-court-will-take/

[Kevin125 4,772]

From the Forbes article linked above.  You'd think that any rational person would agree. 

 

"The few who attained permits had to beg, plead and show imminent danger to their lives through restraining orders and other legal documentation before Sheriff Gore was compelled to bequeath a woman being stalked or some other unfortunate person their right to bear arms.

 

Imagine if a local sheriff or other official was permitted to treat other constitutionally protected rights this way. Could a police officer search your home without a warrant if you don’t have some state documentation showing you particularly need your Fourth Amendment rights? Could a district attorney require you to testify against yourself unless you somehow proved to their satisfaction that you really, really need your Fifth Amendment rights? This treatment of the U.S. Bill of Rights obviously doesn’t even pass the laugh test."