Posted on 03/27/2015 7:26:26 AM PDT by marktwain
THOMAS, Chief Judge:Peruta has already been cited in several cases, notably in cases involving the issue of carry permits in Hawaii, Washington D.C. and in counties of California
Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35(a) and Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion and order denying motions to intervene shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.
ALL GREEK TO ME
Translation please
9th circus. Expect an anti-gun ruling.
Under San Diego’s policy, a “’typical’ responsible, law-abiding citizen in San Diego County cannot bear arms in public for self-defense” because by San Diego’s definition, typical citizens fearing for their personal safety cannot ‘”distinguish [themselves] from the mainstream’” and receive concealed carry permits. (Peruta v. San Diego (9th Cir, 02-13-14) p. 54.) California does not allow the open carry of firearms whether loaded or unloaded. (Cal. Pen. Code §§ 25850, 26155.) Thus, the court found San Diego County’s restrictive policy in combination with California’s denial of open carry ultimately resulted in the destruction of the typical law-abiding, responsible citizen’s right to bear arms in any manner in public, thereby violating the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. Unless overridden, the decision will force California to become a shall-issue state in regards to concealed carry permits.
Activist judges didn’t like the outcome.
San Diego sheriff was going to comply but Jerry Brown stuck his nose into it.
In law, an en banc session is a session where a case is heard before all the judges of a court – in other words, before the entire bench – rather than by a panel selected from them.
The Ninth Circuit ruled that you have a right to self defense outside of the home. In a rare procedure, a justice on the court asked the whole circuit to re-hear the case. In an even more unusual event, the whole circuit decided to do so.
This means that an eleven judge panel, selected at random, will hear the case and decide if the Second Amendment applies outside of the home or not, in the Ninth Circuit.
As a practical matter, it means that if they affirm the decision in the three judge panel, government agents in the Ninth Circuit will be required to issue concealed carry permits if the person meets the legal criteria to have the permit issued.
If they reverse the decision, the situation will revert to where government agents (generally sheriffs or police chiefs) in the Ninth Circuit will be able to deny a concealed carry permit to anyone they wish.
“In law, an en banc session is a session where a case is heard before all the judges of a court – in other words, before the entire bench – rather than by a panel selected from them.”
The Ninth Circuit is so large that an en banc panel consists of eleven members selected at random.
Sounds bad for our side.
That’s true, I should have added that.
And the Peruta ruling has implications for Hawaii, nominally a “may issue” state where no known licenses have been issued. Hawaii is in the 9th circuit, so if the ruling in Peruta stipulates that California must issue to any qualified applicant, that ruling will also automatically apply to the entire circuit, including Hawaii.
I bet that the en banc review was granted because of this potential sweeping change in Hawaii.
If Peruta is upheld en banc, combined with the 7th circuit decision in IL, and contrasted against the 3rd circuit decision upholding NJ’s may issue (won’t issue) scheme, this whole thing may be heading for the Supremes.
This would be a great step, but the fascist loons are creative and relentless in their pursuit of the destruction of liberty.
CA will still have its restrictive list of what firearms you can legally own. As well as it's ongoing war on ammunition.
And that is why I will never return to Daygo. Plus the entire city is corrupt, from the mayor and police chief all the down to the beat cops.
I thought the en banc request had to come down within 30 days of the ruling? It must be close to a year since Peruta
No, it turns out it is quite a complex process. In the end, any one judge may ask for an en banc hearing sua sponte. Then the judges vote on it to decide.
The sua sponte call only came after the call for intervention to allow Kamela Harris to intervene on an en banc hearing was denied through the normal process.
Here is a graphic that shows the process of the sua sponte vote:
http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2014/12/sua-sponte-process-for-en-banc-in.html
“I bet that the en banc review was granted because of this potential sweeping change in Hawaii.”
Speculation: Someone wants to retain the status quo in Hawaii since Obama will be moving there (rather than jail) when he leaves office. Too dangerous for him to have a bunch of right-wing crazies out shooting everyone like the wild west. He could get caught in a crossfire.
This was a case already headed to the Supreme Court. Going en banc simply adds another step.
However, it can be argued, SCOTUS is somewhat institutionally reluctant to take or overturn decisions by the appellate courts. The goal here is to get the en banc panel to rule in the “right” way, built upon a well-documented (iow padded) body of evidence, then dare SCOTUS to overrule them.
To add: this is why it was so important for King vs Burwell to reach SCOTUS first, before that similar case the DC Circuit decided to hear (presumably with an intent of ruling in the Gvt’s favor and overtuning, and again daring SCOTUS to do something about it).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.