madsend81
Member
Richards V Prieto is the big one that deals with GMC. It was heard at the same time as Peruta.
Brady Campaign Motion to Intervene in Peruta v Gore said:Brady has standing because its members have suffered a particularized injury due to the Court's decision to overturn the San Diego CCW policy.
Loss of control of a segment of the population that they believe that they should control. That's the only thing I can think of.Gotta wonder what the "particularized injury" was,Cuz?
morcey2 said:Loss of control of a segment of the population that they believe that they should control. That's the only thing I can think of.
So, this seems to meanBefore: O’SCANNLAIN, THOMAS, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence’s Motion to Extend Time for
Filing a Petition for Rehearing En Banc and Stay the Issuance of the Mandate, and
Proposed Intervenor State of California’s Motion to Extend Time to File a Petition
for Rehearing En Banc and Stay Issuance of the Mandate, both filed with this
Court on February 27, 2014, are GRANTED. Any proposed petitions for rehearing
filed with this Court by February 27, 2014 will be considered timely if this Court
grants the petitioners’ concurrently filed motions to intervene. This order does not
extend the time for filing petitions for rehearing for any petitioner who did not
move to intervene by February 27, 2014.
Submission with respect to the pending motions to intervene is deferred
pending further order of the Court. Issuance of the mandate is stayed pending
further order of the Court.
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.That is just freaking Amazing! I can't believe this came from the 9th circus.
Good!Latest news:
The State of California’s Motion to Intervene is
DENIED.
The Brady Campaign’s Motion for Leave to Intervene is
DENIED.
CPCA and CPOA’s Petition for Rehearing En Banc,
construed as a motion to intervene, is DENIED.
Happy day in CA!