Recent content by madsend81

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!

FYI, SCOTUS denied Drake: http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/050514zor_m6io.pdf I started a thread about it in the Legal forum.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/050514zor_m6io.pdf

Another theory that I've heard is that the court may be trying to figure out how to reframe the question being asked of the court so that they can get 5 justices on board. They did that before hearing Heller.

I gave the ruling a cursory reading, and most of the discussion dealt with the level of violence that Castleman had pled guilty to, so it looked to me that they essentially said, "We're not really going to draw a line in the sand just yet, but we do know that this guy crossed over it" :scrutiny:

She's still got some standing issues, particularly why she denied a request to be made a party to the lawsuit earlier, but now wants to join.

This line is cute:

Not to be outdone, the Brady Campaign has also filed a motion to Intervene. This one just smells like a stall tactic. There is no way the Brady campaign has any standing to be granted a motion to intervene. **Warning, the PDF is 187 pages***...

And the state AG has filed a motion to intervene as defendant and has petitioned the court for an En Banc hearing. Motion to Intervene: https://www.dropbox.com/s/fizgv7vzfrrzhgn/mtn%20to%20intervene.pdf Petition for En Banc...

On calguns, the latest is that the California Peace Officer's Association and the California Police Chiefs' Association have filed a request for an En Banc hearing, even though their standing to request such is questionable as they were simply Amici, not parties to the original case. Here is...

With the wording in the Peruta ruling, municipalities cannot use regulations to create a de facto ban on exercising the right to carry, so if CA sheriffs are going to use GMC like they used GC to limit issuance of licenses, they will be on shaky ground.

Richards V Prieto is the big one that deals with GMC. It was heard at the same time as Peruta.

Here is the press release from SD Sheriff office for those interested: http://www.calgunlaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Press-Release-on-Peruta.pdf

OC County and the Sheriff are being sued in another suit for similar reasons. I believe the case is called McCay vs Hutchins. It was stayed pending the outcome of Peruta and a couple of other carry cases working their way through the district courts covering CA. It's possible OC is hedging its...

I believe that they have 10 days from the issuance of the ruling to file a request for an En Banc hearing. Anyone is welcome to correct me if I am wrong. There is a good discussion about this at Calguns.net: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=893582