Peruta Team Asking Supreme Court to Hear Appeal

ammoland ^ | 13 January, 2017 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

Arizona – -(Ammoland.com)-
Edward Peruta and his fellow plaintiffs have decided to have their council petition the Supreme Court to hear an appeal to the last Ninth Circuit decision in The Peruta case.

Edward Peruta applied to the San Diego County Sheriff for a permit to carry concealed. The Sheriff refused to grant him a permit. Peruta’s case was wrapped in with another case making its way through the courts, with other plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were ruled against in the district court and appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

The Ninth Circuit ruled that County Sheriffs could not use their discretion to arbitrarily deny concealed carry permits, because California had outlawed most open carry; therefore the Sheriff could not arbitrarily deny carry outside the home to the general population.

After a change in the leadership of the Ninth Circuit, the Ninth decided to set aside the decision of the three judge panel, and hear the appeal en banc. In the en banc decision, the Ninth ignored the ban on open carry and concluded that it was constitutional for sheriffs to use discretion to deny concealed carry permits.  The orders and opinions at the Ninth Circuit are available here.

The legal team of C.D. Michel and Associates has filed a Petition For Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. The question filed is whether, when open carry is prohibited, can county sheriffs ban most people from obtaining a concealed carry permit, when they have the option to grant those permits? Here is the question as given in the petition:

[marktwain]

It is uncertain if the Supreme Court will hear the case. It chooses to hear very few. The Congress gave the Supreme Court the authority to pick what cases it will hear in the Judiciary act of 1891. Before that time, the court was required to hear all cases.

[Reno89519]

Has anyone recently tried to get their out-of-state constitutional rights respected in California?

[circlecity]

I’m not sure the the timing is right for this to go to the USSC now. We need art least one more conservative.

[i_robot73]

IMO, it’s futility to argue ‘rights’ once you’ve conceded the suppression thereof.

If you affirm that permits are required, what matters if they are may\shall??

Not that I’d expect the Left to allow a case where ONLY the phrase ‘...shall not be infringed’ to come before ‘em (hell, they couldn’t agree on the definition of ONLY when it came to ‘ONLY State exchanges’ in O’Care).

Especially as they perverted everything else w/ ‘penumbras’ and looking outside the U.S.

Govt would shit its pants if SCOTUS ruled, correctly, that any/all arms @ any time, in any fashion they wish to be bared. What OTHER Rights might The People realize are being suppressed\trampled?

[wastedyears]

Should the Judiciary Act be repealed?

[Celtic Conservative]

The answer to that is reverse creeping incrementalism. the same way we lost some of our rights is the same way we’ll get ‘em back- a little at a time if necessary. The progressives have been real good at playing the long game-we should be too.

CC

[rellimpank]

-—only if you would be willing to expand the Court to about 500 justices or else expect about a fifty year wait for a decision-—

[marktwain]

An intermediate step has been suggested to create a set of courts to hear cases from the appeals courts, and sort out those that need to go to the Supreme Court.

I forget the name of the proposal.

Congress has the ability to do that.

[vette6387]

This “idea” that the SCOTUS should have the “ability” to decide which cases it hears, particularly as regards Bill of Rights issues must end! These nine worthless a$$hole need either get to work or be turned out! They are like a bunch of “doctors” who, rather than binding a wound, just pick at the scab that has formed.

[marktwain]

It was the Congress that gave the Supreme Court that power, in 1891.

The Congress could reverse that, if it so desired.

[i_robot73]

>
The answer to that is reverse creeping incrementalism. the same way we lost some of our rights is the same way we’ll get ‘em back- a little at a time if necessary. The progressives have been real good at playing the long game-we should be too.
>

Why should illegality be met w/ ‘the long game’?? It is, or is not.

2nd, we’ve all seen just the reversal *our side* does when it’s in power: One step forward, two BACK. Oh, they love to nibble here and there and call it a win. The only ones ‘winning’ is govt.

There’s nobody in govt on the side of the Citizen or taxpayer; they don’t equal VOTES\power\influence.