Breaking news: Ninth Circuit Rules California May Issue Unconstituional

[madsend81]

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

 

[galapoola]

In NJ we have a "good moral character" clause in the statute for ownership and carry of firearms. As far as I know, the gatekeeper for this has been the reference check. If an applicant's references find no reason for the town to deny a permit (carry, purchase, own), then you are of good moral character. If NJ looses the "justifiable need" requirement for permits to carry, I can imagine the tyrants in Trenton (state capital) could adjust the administrative code to include some unobtainable standard for "good moral character" to keep the status quo. They are famous for moving the goal posts to get their way.

 

[wildbilll]

Good moral character is a legal term that has a historical meaning that isn't easily redefined. Anyone who is not of good moral character already knows who they are.
Airline Transport Pilots are required by Federal Aviation Regulation 61.153 (c) to be of good moral character, I know some who you wouldn't want to associate with and they do have criminal records.

 

[madsend81]

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.

 

[galapoola]

I was pleasantly surprised that IL did not challenge the court of appeals when they lost, I'm further surprised that Gore has said he wouldn't challenge. Makes me think they are getting a phone call from someone telling them to stand down. If the tyrants win in the lower courts they have no say whether a plaintiff can appeal. But if they loose the onus is on them not the plaintiff to appeal it up. That's why I'm thinking there are some puppet masters somewhere telling people like Gore and AG Madigan of IL to halt. The fear is that by adding yet another lawsuit to the list that could reach SCOTUS it increases the odds in our favor. It's a numbers game, the less cases appealed up the less the chance of one being heard. The tyrants do not want "to bear" defined by SCOTUS in a case that specifically addresses it. Yes the dicta in Heller & McDonald is clear but the lower courts have been avoiding that, kicking it down the road. That is the end game IMHO, to not get one of these before SCOTUS. If they succeed, then states outside the 7th and 9th districts can continue to infringe as needed.

 

[madsend81]

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 the filing:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/9eyocu0pc2rczhs/Document.pdf

 

[madsend81]

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:
https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-kamala-d-harris-appeals-ninth-circuit-concealed-weapons-permit

 

[madsend81]

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***
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2014/02/28/10-56971_motion_to_intervene_brady_campain.pdf

 

[madsend81]

This line is cute:

Brady has standing because its members have suffered a particularized injury due to the Court's decision to overturn the San Diego CCW policy.

 

[Red Wind]

Gotta wonder what the "particularized injury" was,Cuz?

 

[morcey2]

Gotta wonder what the "particularized injury" was,Cuz?

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.

 

[Trent]

Hah not going down without a fight, are they?

 

[Red Wind]

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.

Good reasoning.That is probably it.

 

[Librarian]

Development: Filed 2/28/2014

Before: 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.

So, this seems to mean
(1) the mandate to the lower court is stayed, and
(2) the submissions by Brady and the CA-AG are timely, and (apparently the Court will look at them to see if they should be allowed to ask for rehearing, and if the Court decides to allow it) the deadline for requesting such rehearing is extended.

 

[ohbythebay]

Color me confused...

I read about the California decision as if it was something that happened today, yet reading this thread, seems like it is old..

Can someone bring me up to date on whats what ? I thought it was today and this will spark a SCOTUS decision since we have conflicting federal appeals court rulings ..

 

[Librarian]

9th Circuit is still deciding whether to allow the CA AG to intervene. The last action was May 14, a response from Sheriff Gore/his legal team as ordered by the Court.

See the 9th's web site for the case http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000722.

 

[LiveLife]

ohbythebay, here's summary overview and update from Michel & Associates' webpage - http://michellawyers.com/2014/nra-victory-in-the-peruta-shall-issue-california-ccw-case/

Here's a video of attorney Chuck Michel talking with Cam Edwards of NRA News about the case - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMOkaflMly4

 

[HexHead]

That is just freaking Amazing! I can't believe this came from the 9th circus.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

 

[ohbythebay]

Still confused

The court links seem to be "old news". It seems like TODAY decided the case (2 to 1) unless of course they (CA Atty General) appeals? Still wondering what I am missing...

EDIT: Never mind///clarity now..it is old news..NRA and certain articles made it sound like this was "breaking news"....THANKS TO ALL

 

[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!

 

[egyas]

Good news indeed!

 

[Praxidike]

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!

Good!

 

[Red Wind]

Wonderful!

 

[carpboy]

Good News!

 

[Midwest]

New court decision could end California's restrictions on conceal-carry permits

So now y'all could get carry permits in any part of the state?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...fornia-restrictions-on-conceal-carry-permits/


"Law-abiding Californians may not need to justify their need to carry concealed weapons, after the same three-judge panel that struck down restrictions on the permits earlier this year ruled Wednesday that it is too late for new opponents to join the fight against the ruling."
.