Free Republic

Pasadena, CA. Today, three federal appellate judges in the Ninth Circuit issued a final ruling in favor of a Christian man, Mark Mackey, who was arrested for reading the Bible aloud in front of the California Department of Motor Vehicles in Hemet, CA in 2011. Read the ruling here. The CHP Officer, Darren Meyers, erroneously cited Mr. Mackey for violating a state law that forbids the interference with an open business through obstruction and intimidation. The Ninth Circuit rebuked the officer’s fabricated claims in his police report: Upon arrival, Meyer encountered Mackey reading his bible aloud in a dirt patch,...

Liberals are panicking about the fact that President-elect Donald Trump will be able to fill four vacancies on the historically left-leaning Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals when he takes office later this month. Outgoing Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) called the vacancies a “judicial emergency,” according to Bay Area public radio station KQED, even though there are 29 judges on the court. The “emergency” is that Trump’s nominees might be able to make the court more conservative. The Ninth Circuit’s jurisdiction covers many West Coast states, and its decisions have often reflected the liberal political culture of California and other “left...

Earlier this year, on May 16th,  a three judge panel on the Ninth Circuit ruled that Alameda County in California could not impose a zoning ordinance on gun stores that was more strict than for other businesses.  In the case, Teixeira v. County of Alameda, the ordinance restricted gun stores from locating anywhere withing 500 feet of a residentially zoned district.  From the ruling(pdf): Reversing the dismissal of plaintiffs’ Second Amendment claims, the panel held that the County had offered nothing to undermine the panel’s conclusion that the right to purchase and to sell firearms is part and parcel...

<p>The panel reversed the district court’s bench trial judgment and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of the state of California in an action challenging a California law establishing a 10-day waiting period for all lawful purchases of guns. The panel first stated that this case was a challenge to the application of the full 10-day waiting period to those purchasers who have previously purchased a firearm or have a permit to carry a concealed weapon, and who clear a background check in less than ten days. The panel held that the ten-day waiting period is a reasonable safety precaution for all purchasers of firearms and need not be suspended once a purchaser has been approved. The panel determined that it need not decide whether the regulation was sufficiently longstanding to be presumed lawful. Applying intermediate scrutiny analysis, the panel held that the law does not violate plaintiff’s Second Amendment rights because the ten-day wait is a reasonable precaution for the purchase of a second or third weapon, as well as for a first purchase.</p>

On 14 December, 2016, a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court ruling in Silvester v. Harris.  In the original decision, the District Court ruled that requiring a gun owner who had already passed a background check, and who either already owned a registered gun or had a concealed carry permit, was an infringement on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The Ninth Circuit held that a 10 day waiting period was a "reasonable safety precaution".  From the decision at uscourts.gov(pdf): The panel reversed the district court’s bench trial...

The Ninth Circuit Court has upheld the ruling of the lower court in the Edward Peruta v. County of San Diego case and affirmed the Second Amendment does not include a right to conceal a firearm. The Peruta case challenged the legality of denying permits to conceal and carry a firearm unless the applicant for a permit has "good reason" to do so. A three-judge panel initially ruled that the San Diego County Sheriff's Department did not have the right to deny the permit. The case was subsequently heard by the entire Ninth Circuit Court and their decision was...

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that yes, there is a right to sell guns under the Second Amendment.The case involved the three owners of a proposed gun store in Alameda, CA, who were denied a zoning permit for their establishment. (The anti-gun fools are trying to use the building permit process in Arlington, VA, as well.)“If ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms’ is to have any force, the people must have a right to acquire the very firearms they are entitled to keep and to bear,” wrote Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain for the...

The plaintiffs in the case included three individuals who wanted to open a new gun store in Alameda County. They were joined by pro-Second Amendment groups: The Calguns Foundation, California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees, and the Second Amendment Foundation. “Today, the Court appropriately reminded the County that civil rights can’t be outlawed through piles of regulation. We look forward to securing Second Amendment rights through this case and many others to come,” concluded Brandon Combs, executive director of The Calguns Foundation. “We’re very happy to see the Court take a very principled and reasoned approach to protecting the fundamental,...

Edward Peruta v. County of San Diego is a closely watched case in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  Originally, a three judge panel ruled that Sheriff’s did not have the authority to arbitrarily refuse to grant permits to most citizens who applied for them, invalidating the “good reason” excuse that Sheriffs were using.The case is particularly important because the panel ruled that there is a Constituitonal right to carry a gun outside of the home, and that government entities may not effectively ban the carry of firearms outside of the home for self defense.  At least one judge in...

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday left intact a ruling that struck down anArizona law that denied bail to illegal immigrants charged with certain felonies. The justices rejected an appeal filed by Maricopa County and its controversial sheriff, Joe Arpaio. Three of the court's conservative justices, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, said they would have heard the case. Four of the nine justices must agree to hear a case for the court to take it up. The court's action means the October 2014 ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which said the 2006 law is unconstitutional, is the final word in the...

<p>In its 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court not only struck down Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban, it also struck down D.C.'s requirement that all firearms kept at home be "unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device." According to the majority opinion of Justice Antonin Scalia, the individual right secured by the Second Amendment voids such requirements because it protects the right of the people to keep a "lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense."</p>

Ed Peruta initiated the lawsuit that became the Ninth Circuit Court case, Edward Peruta v. County of San Diego.  Not a lot has been written about the man who initiated the case with the potential to reform all the "may issue" concealed carry laws in the country.    Recently, Mr. Peruta wrote a comment about the Ninth Circuits decision to hear the case en banc.  I found the comment on a Hawaii publication.   Here it is.   From civilbeat.com: I have this comment regarding today's ruling from the Ninth Circuit: San Diego Sheriff Bill Gore has had the...

The commonsense ruling that the second amendment applies outside of the home in the Peruta court case in the Ninth Circuit will now be decided by a hearing of an en banc panel of the justices of the Circuit. Decided in favor of the plaintiff, procedural motions eventually led to a at least one judge calling for the en banc hearing, sua sponte.  Thought to be unlikely because of both the clear ruling and the rarity of en banc hearings, the Ninth none the less voted to hear the case en banc.  The notice of the vote was published...

In the midst of his recovery from a serious accident at his home in Nevada, Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has gotten some more bad news: the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the felony conviction of Harvey Whittemore, a big financial supporter of the senator. According to the Ninth Circuit’s opinion, which was released on Jan. 26, Whittemore is “a prominent attorney, developer and lobbyist who has long been active in Nevada politics and political fundraising.” In 2007, he was the chairman of “a holding company with significant interests in golf courses, land development, oil and gas properties, and...

The Chart above is said to have been produced by michellawyers.com.  This is a screen shot of the pdf file.   I appreciate the work that went into producing this chart, especially as the timing is subject to change "for good cause" by the En Banc Coordinator at every step of the process.    I do not know if Judge Sidney Runyan Thomas is still the En Banc Coordinator.  The chart is said to have been produced in 2010, four years ago. Now that a Judge in the Ninth Circuit has called for the an En Banc review, sua sponte, this...

In the ongoing saga of Peruta v. County of San Diego, another procedural turn; a judge on the Ninth Circuit has called for a vote to determine if the Circuit will hear the case en banc.   This is a call for a vote to review the original decision, not to hear the appeal of the denial of the request to intervene by Attorney General Kamala Harris of California.  Here is the Order, from the pdf: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, THOMAS, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.A judge of this Court having made a sua sponte call for a vote on whether this case...

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...

Peruta is the seminal right to carry outside the home case that was decided on February of 2014.   The case was decided against Sheriff Gore of San Diego County, and San Diego County.   The Sheriff and the County declined to appeal to the full Ninth Circuit for an en banc hearing.   The AG for California, applied to be granted the ability to intervene for the state, to ask for a en banc hearing. Today, 12 November, 2014, the Ninth Circuit denied the motions to intervene, thus denying requests for an en banc hearing for the decision.   Therefore, Peruta stands...

In perhaps the most stunning documentation yet of abuses by Eric Holder’s Justice Department, two former Assistant United States Attorneys spoke to defense attorneys and revealed appalling deceit and corruption of justice. This latest litigation time bomb has exploded from multi-million dollar litigation originally brought by the Department of Justice against Sierra Pacific based on allegations that the lumber company and related defendants were responsible for a wildfire that destroyed 65,000 acres in California. In what was dubbed the “Moonlight Fire” case, the tables are now turned. The defendants have discovered new evidence and filed a stunning motion. The new...