CA:Thoughts on the 9th Circuit case -- where do we go from here?

armsandthelaw.com ^ | 15 February, 2014 | David Hardy

[marktwain]

The county has 14 calendar days from the date of the ruling to move for rehearing en banc. If the county fails to move, any judge of the court, of their own volition, move for such rehearing within 21 days of the ruling. This seems to fit the grounds for such a motion, in particular conflict with other circuits and an issue of pressing national importance. A majority of the court can vote to grant.

En banc: normally, ruling are handed down by 3-judge panels. En banc in all other circuits means that all of the judges of the court take part and vote, after rehearing the matter. The 9th is so large, however (27 active-duty judges) that it has adopted a special rule. Ten judges are chosen at random, plus the chief judge (Alex Kosinski, a supporter of the 2A). For whatever it's worth, the 27 active-duty judges divide into 18 Democratic appointments and 9 Republican ones.

To complicate things, the Circuit can also vote to have a true en banc, with all 27 judges participating.

Once the en banc panel is chosen, it votes on whether to have additional briefing or argument. They almost always for for additional argument, I don't know about briefing.

If the en banc court reverses the panel ruling here, it'd make a really nice case for the Supreme Court (and maybe even if it upholds it). Big circuit split -- 7th and 9th Circuits taking a broad view of the right to bear arms outside the house, several other circuits saying "not until the Supreme Court orders us to do so." The panel decision has a great exploration of the issue, and is 77 pages long; the dissent is 40 pages, as I recall, and clearly presents the argument to the contrary. An en banc ruling would further flesh things out, with input from 11 (or 28) judges.

UPDATE: thinking it over ... en banc upholds panel decision, the result is a clear circuit split, well hashed-out, good candidate for Supreme Court. BUT since the good guys won, they cannot ask the Supreme Court to review. En banc reverses panel, less of a circuit split (there's still the Seventh Circuit, which recognized that the 2A applies outside the house, good guys lost, so they can seek review. There may also be collateral effects, in that other cases seeking cert. now or in the near future can point to the (at least temporary) split between the 7th and the 9th and the other circuits that refuse to apply Heller/McDonald outside the home.

[marktwain]

I did not know that one judge from the 9th Circuit can call for consideration of an en banc panel.

That makes it almost certain that it will be considered, but hardly certain that it will be done.

[Steely Tom]

No decision is ever final until the Left gets what it wants.

[Atlas Sneezed]

So if the antis appeal, and SCOTUS upholds, then the law of the land will have been written by O’Scannlain, an excellent conservative jurist who was once talked about as a SCOTUS nominee, but who is now 76.

[KeyLargo]

Pepsico underwriting Gabby Giffords’ gun control group

February 17, 2014

Just as Moms Demand Action (Go to a single’s bar, girls) and Mayors Against Illegal Guns (aka the Kiddie Porn Mayors group 1 2 3 4 5 6 Google it) has former NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg funding their civilian disarmament schemes, and the Brady Campaign withers from a lack of funding, the folks at The Truth About Guns have identified the major source of funding for Gabby Giffords’ “Americans for Responsible Solutions” or whatever her merry band of 13 employees call themselves.

The sponsor: Pepsico.

Follow the money.

Via: http://www.gunssavelife.com/?p=11004

[MileHi]

Pepsico

Customer Inquiries
To contact our consumer response team call us at
1-800-433-2652

[vette6387]

Thanks for the graphic. Makes my buying decisions easier. Just say NO to PEPSICO!

[vette6387]

For those of you who want to see how LTC permits are given in CA, take a look at this report from CalGuns.

http://calgunsfoundation.org/carry-initiative/reports/cgf_carry-license-report-2013.pdf

CA is a state of “do” and “don’t” counties.

Los Angeles: pop. 10 million, civilian permits, 173
Sacramento (that just lost a lawsuit over permit policies last year): pop. 1.5 million. civilian permits, 3,754
In some of the small pop counties, permitting is approaching 1% of the population. CalGuns is saying that they estimate that if this law is upheld, that CA will have to issue something on the order of 1.4 million LTC’s

[Enterprise]

"CalGuns is saying that they estimate that if this law is upheld, that CA will have to issue something on the order of 1.4 million LTC’s"

Just a minor point of distinction, but supporters of the 2nd Amendment do not want the LAW upheld. They want the decision declaring the law unconstitutional to be upheld.

[vette6387]

“Just a minor point of distinction, but supporters of the 2nd Amendment do not want the LAW upheld. They want the decision declaring the law unconstitutional to be upheld.”

I misspoke, I meant to say that I wanted the court’s decision to be upheld, sorry!

[B4Ranch]

Nicely done! Other than Quaker Oats and Ocean Spray I don’t use any them.

[Enterprise]

You spoke with your heart, and that was really good enough. I merely pointed out a minor clarification,

[vette6387]

“You spoke with your heart, and that was really good enough. I merely pointed out a minor clarification,”

AS a life-long Californian, a staunch Regan Republican, and a gun owner, I just wanted folks of FR to know that as regards guns, CA is far from monolithic. There seems to be some legal distinction between counties with less than 200,000 population as opposed to one’s with more than that number as the laws apply to LTC permits. Both Sacramento and neighboring Yolo counties were sued over the same nonsense that the 9Th Circuit just ruled. Surprisingly, Sacramento ( which has 1.5 million residents) capitulated and is now issuing LTC permits to those who ask and are otherwise not prevented from having them. But the sheriff in Yolo ( pop. 208,000) is still fighting the suit, and therein lies our problem. “Sheriffs” and I use quotes because these people fail the test of what a sheriff is supposed to be, in the more populous counties are shills for the liberal establishment there. I have a good friend ( and pistol champion ) who lives in Sonoma County (where the sheriff won’t issue permits) but within a couple of miles of Mendocino County where the sheriff will issue. Both counties have substantial rural areas, but the major cities in Sonoma are liberal bastions (Santa Rosa, Petaluma, and Sonoma) so he’s screwed ( for now) unless he wants to move up the road. Most of us are waiting to see how this litigation shakes out. I am quite certain that the local constabulary will have some interim way to deny me a permit until they are finally forced to, and so all you would get for your trouble is unwanted police surveillance for applying.

[Enterprise]

The issues of concealed carry and open carry has been a continuing boiling pot of liberal pus. The libs made it unlawful to carry a concealed firearm without a permit, and then they left it up to the discretion of the Sheriff's and Chiefs of Police as to who gets a permit. Some have followed consistent procedures and issued a permit after a background check. Others granted permits to political donors, cronies, and celebrities and told everyone else to buzz off.

Anyway as you know, there was a loophole for a period of time that let people openly carry as long as the gun wasn't loaded. While this was still the law, a lawsuit in Northern California in a Federal Court was challenging the concealed weapons permit law. The Federal Judge snarkily said that the question was moot because Californians could openly carry, and then dismissed the lawsuit. Not long after that, the libs made it illegal to carry openly also. The state of affairs became that people could not get concealed carry permits unless a Sheriff or Chief of Police issued a permit, and open carry was outlawed.

The wording of the 2nd Amendment notwithstanding, it appears that part of the ruling of the 9th recognizes that the right to self defense does not end at the threshold of your house. The person who lawfully uses a firearm in self defense while inside the home (without a permit), must also be able to lawfully use a firearm in self defense while OUTSIDE the home (without a permit). (Parenthetical comments are mine, not the judge's.) I think this is where the libs finally hung themselves. As another FReeper pointed out, a huge issue now that the libs have to answer is what compelling reason do Federal, State, and local authorities have for denying a person the lawful right of self defense?