CA: AG Kamala Harris Requests en banc Review of the Denial of her Request to Intervene in Peruta

Gun Watch ^ | 28 November, 2014 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

On November 26, Kamala Harris, the AG of California, filed a request for an en banc review of the decision on 12 November to deny her request to intervene in the case.  From campaign-archive1.com  (Michel & Associates):

The AG’s latest request to the court comes after the court denied the AG’s and several gun ban advocacy groups’ requests to join the case once they learned Sheriff Gore had decided not to appeal the case any further.  The anti-gun rights groups have also filed a similar request for en banc review of the Ninth Circuit's denial of their requests to intervene in the case.

 This is another move by the AG to fight Peruta at every possible turn.  I have read the Order Denying Motions to Intervene.  Like the rest of the Peruta decisions, the order is clear and logical.  But then, I am not a lawyer. 

It is easy to see why the disarmists are desperate to stop implementation of Peruta.   Once Peruta is implemented, hundreds of thousands of California shall issue permits will be issued.   Once that many voters, (because virtually every permit holder is a reliable voter) have permits, there is no putting the shall issue genie back in the bottle.

California is the last hope for disarmists to achieve a sort of stalemate for the implementation of the second amendment.  If they lose Peruta, California and Hawaii are lost.  Once California and Hawaii are lost, only a tiny remnant of "may issue" states remain on the East coast, surrounding New York, where the entire sham of modern "may issue" started with the infamous Sullivan law; a law that was designed to protect organized crime.

In that situation, national reciprocity will become a fact, if it has not already.  It is hard to believe that the citizens of New York will be reconciled to a situation where everyone in the nation who wishes to, will be able to exercise their second amendment rights in New York, *except* for citizens of New York and the other five states in the North East coastal cluster.

I think Peruta will stand.   The logic is clear, the facts are clear, the Constitution is clear.  Much of rural California is already effectively shall issue.

But ideologues on the left seems to hate the idea of armed citizens to its core, even though that hatred is irrational and is an enormous political liability.

  Definition of  disarmist 

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

[marktwain]

If Peruta stands, only six "may issue" states will still exist, all centred around New York.

[jimfree]

If the court grants standing they should reopen the Prop 8 case.

[rktman]

Oddly enough, I, with all due respect, request ag kammie harris stick it where the sun don’t shine. Of course she’d be required to momentarily remove her head from that location.

[eyeamok]

Let’s not forget prop 187, in which the parties involved were denied the right to appeal the case.

She will LOSE, they will not open this can of worms

[arthurus]

even though that hatred is irrational

It isn't irrational. Leftists far the military and armed non military groups that are not under their direct control. The ultimate goal of all socialists, Communists, Progressives , Fabians and all other leftists is total control down to the calories you are permitted to consume and the thoughts you are permitted to think. General possession of arms is not compatible with that.