9th Circuit - "Good Cause" Requirement Unconstitutional

[Knuckle Dragger]

Betting against the Supreme Court granting cert in any given case is usually a good bet. The rate at which cases are granted cert is in the low single digits. To maximize one's winning you'd bet against every case, including the ones you think are really good, really important, and you can't live without.

Part of me wants to see Peruta go en banc just because I'd like to see more fuel on the fire. I'm not clear that either the police amici nor the CA AG have standing here. The former is merely and amici and the AG did not intervene when she had the opportunity to do so. This may not matter much as the circuit can grant en banc review sua sponte. 9CA is a strange animal. When their cases go to SCOTUS the decisions are overturned 80%+ of the time. By contrast, decisions from the other circuits are upheld about 80% of the time.

However, leaving Peruta hanging out there, unfinished in the 9th circuit only gives SCOTUS more reasons NOT to grant cert in Drake. If the 9th takes Peruta en banc we could be looking at another 18 months before they give their final word. And we still don't know how any of this - en banc for Peruta or cert for Drake - will play out when the 9th drops the other two shoes - Richards and Baker.

 

[Garys]

Well now, it's getting pretty interesting. I wonder about the AG's standing. I also wonder if the 9th will rehear en banc sua sponte. I would think not, but I'd rather bet on the sun coming up in the west tomorrow.

I think it's going to be a wild ride because so much is potentially riding on this decision, especially if it ends up at SCOTUS.

Betting against the Supreme Court granting cert in any given case is usually a good bet. The rate at which cases are granted cert is in the low single digits. To maximize one's winning you'd bet against every case, including the ones you think are really good, really important, and you can't live without.

Part of me wants to see Peruta go en banc just because I'd like to see more fuel on the fire. I'm not clear that either the police amici nor the CA AG have standing here. The former is merely and amici and the AG did not intervene when she had the opportunity to do so. This may not matter much as the circuit can grant en banc review sua sponte. 9CA is a strange animal. When their cases go to SCOTUS the decisions are overturned 80%+ of the time. By contrast, decisions from the other circuits are upheld about 80% of the time.

However, leaving Peruta hanging out there, unfinished in the 9th circuit only gives SCOTUS more reasons NOT to grant cert in Drake. If the 9th takes Peruta en banc we could be looking at another 18 months before they give their final word. And we still don't know how any of this - en banc for Peruta or cert for Drake - will play out when the 9th drops the other two shoes - Richards and Baker.

 

[Fizz226]

Here's hoping the en banc hearing is declined and the CA AG successfully appeals to SCOTUS...

 

[bigblue]

Here's hoping the en banc hearing is declined and the CA AG successfully appeals to SCOTUS...

+1

The only reason I care about this case is the possible SCOTUS implications.

Once in a blue moon the crazy justices scare the crap out of us and actually send down an earth shattering opinion. I know it seems to happen only once a generation but let's be serious: Three generations of imbeciles is enough.

 

[jar]

+1

The only reason I care about this case is the possible SCOTUS implications.

Once in a blue moon the crazy justices scare the crap out of us and actually send down an earth shattering opinion. I know it seems to happen only once a generation but let's be serious: Three generations of imbeciles is enough.

Even if the case just stands in the 9th circuit, moving 12% of the population from may issue to shall issue potentially has big positive implications for national politics.

 

[M1911]

Even if the case just stands in the 9th circuit, moving 12% of the population from may issue to shall issue potentially has big positive implications for national politics.

It sure would be amusing to see all the big name CA liberals with their panties in a twist.

 

[bigblue]

Even if the case just stands in the 9th circuit, moving 12% of the population from may issue to shall issue potentially has big positive implications for national politics.

True; very true. I would be more impressed if Kalifornia seceded though. If this really is a victory for us then I think it would put pressure on New England Democrats to compensate for the loss by finding new ways to make our lives miserable. This needs to happen in NY, NJ, CT, MA.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

It sure would be amusing to see all the big name CA liberals with their panties in a twist.

It already is.

 

[Cero]

This is a good decision for Ca but I'm also thinking about MA. What this means for me.

If the en banc is allowed, and if makes it to the SC, AND they rule in favor of Perta(sp?). how would that effect Ma lic? Wouldn't it just be removing of the sporting, target, etc restrictions?

 

[M1911]

It already is.

Any examples in the press that you can link to?

- - - Updated - - -

This is a good decision for Ca but I'm also thinking about MA. What this means for me.

If the en banc is allowed, and if makes it to the SC, AND they rule in favor of Perta(sp?). how would that effect Ma lic? Wouldn't it just be removing of the sporting, target, etc restrictions?

It would also remove the ability of a chief to deny an LTC for suitability. It would effectively make LTCs shall-issue, which would be a huge win. There would be no more red and black towns in MA.

 

[soloman02]

Any examples in the press that you can link to?

- - - Updated - - -



It would also remove the ability of a chief to deny an LTC for suitability. It would effectively make LTCs shall-issue, which would be a huge win. There would be no more red and black towns in MA.

Except for that pesky little fact that the MA judges, police, and politicians ignore SCOTUS rulings...

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Any examples in the press that you can link to?

- - - Updated - - -



It would also remove the ability of a chief to deny an LTC for suitability. It would effectively make LTCs shall-issue, which would be a huge win. There would be no more red and black towns in MA.

How's this from the docket:

02/27/2014 121 Filed (ECF) Amici Curiae California Peace Officers Association and California Police Chiefs Association petition for rehearing en banc (from 02/13/2014 opinion). Date of service: 02/27/2014. [8996109]--[COURT UPDATE: Attached searchable version of petition. Resent NDA. 02/27/2014 by RY] (PRC)

02/27/2014 122 Submitted (ECF) Intervenor brief for review and filed Motion to intervene. Submitted by State of California. Date of service: 02/27/2014. [8996638] (GDB)

02/27/2014 123 Submitted (ECF) Intervenor brief for review and filed Motion to intervene. Submitted by Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Date of service: 02/27/2014. [8996736] (NRO)

02/27/2014 124 Filed (ECF) Amicus Curiae Legal Community Against Violence petition for rehearing en banc (from 02/13/2014 opinion). Date of service: 02/27/2014. [8996737] (SJF)

LCAV and the Bradys are also lobbying for en banc. Then there's this from the Brady website:

Neither history or precedent supports this aberrant, split decision that concocts a dangerous right of people to carry hidden handguns in public places to people whom law enforcement has determined that they have no good cause or qualifications to do so.

 

[cekim]

How's this from the docket:
LCAV and the Bradys are also lobbying for en banc. Then there's this from the Brady website:

Good. Frothing radicals are frothing instead of being able to hide in the "mainstream".

 

[M1911]

"hidden handguns"



Me so scared.

 

[jar]

Except for that pesky little fact that the MA judges, police, and politicians ignore SCOTUS rulings...

It may take a lawsuit here to get them to apply it, but once that happens they'll follow it. Ask the legal resident aliens who now have LTCs thanks to Fletcher. Thankfully said lawsuit (as far as carry) is already in progress (Davis v Grimes).

 

[soloman02]

It may take a lawsuit here to get them to apply it, but once that happens they'll follow it. Ask the legal resident aliens who now have LTCs thanks to Fletcher. Thankfully said lawsuit (as far as carry) is already in progress (Davis v Grimes).

I don't believe that will work. The Mass SJC justices are on record as saying they don't care what SCOTUS says, they won't abide by it. So, as I said in the other thread, how do you force the SJC to comply with the SCOTUS rulings?

 

[jar]

I don't believe that will work. The Mass SJC justices are on record as saying they don't care what SCOTUS says, they won't abide by it. So, as I said in the other thread, how do you force the SJC to comply with the SCOTUS rulings?

The SJC wouldn't be involved. You'd sue in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts (federal court). Look at the Comm2A case Fletcher v Haas for an example. http://www.comm2a.org/images/cases/fletcher_ruling.pdf is the decision. From the last paragraph:

I conclude the Massachusetts firearms regulatory regime as
applied to the individual plaintiffs, contravenes the Second
Amendment. Accordingly I GRANT Fletcher and Pryal’s motion for
summary judgment (Dkt. No. 23) and direct that judgment enter
enjoining denial of firearm licenses and permits to them solely
on the basis of their permanent resident alien status.

Right after the ruling came down, EOPSS announced that cities and towns should go ahead and issue LTCs to legal permanent residents using the old paper method until they could update the computer system. A few IAs (notably Boston IIRC) tried to stall until the software update, but some Cease and Desist letters from Comm2A sorted that out. I believe the computer system is fully updated now and there aren't any issues.

 

[terraformer]

How's this from the docket:
LCAV and the Bradys are also lobbying for en banc. Then there's this from the Brady website:

Note the ECF document numbers are sequential for LCAV and Brady. Apparently Brady's brief was written by LCAV...

- - - Updated - - -

BTW: A little more on procedure. We will find out today if the court takes this or not. If nothing by the end of the day, then Peruta is minted. CA9 needs to give the plaintiff's lawyers a chance to argue for no en banc. That is what would come down today.

 

[jar]

BTW: A little more on procedure. We will find out today if the court takes this or not. If nothing by the end of the day, then Peruta is minted. CA9 needs to give the plaintiff's lawyers a chance to argue for no en banc. That is what would come down today.

I think we won't know for sure until next week. The judges of the court have until 7 days after the deadline for petition for rehearing to call sua sponte for a vote to rehear en banc.

 

[Cero]

Is anyone else bothered by the wording "split decision" in this case"? It was 2-1. While not unanimous I don't view it as a"split" it's sounds kind of sour grapes to me.

 

[jar]

Is anyone else bothered by the wording "split decision" in this case"? It was 2-1. While not unanimous I don't view it as a"split" it's sounds kind of sour grapes to me.

Split decision is used here in the same sense as it is in boxing, so I have issue with it. I would tend to write divided court instead, but it doesn't matter.

 

[Neuro]

Is anyone else bothered by the wording "split decision" in this case"? It was 2-1. While not unanimous I don't view it as a"split" it's sounds kind of sour grapes to me.

I believe it refers to non-unanimous, it just sounds catchier in the media.

 

[terraformer]

I think we won't know for sure until next week. The judges of the court have until 7 days after the deadline for petition for rehearing to call sua sponte for a vote to rehear en banc.

True, but they should provide plaintiffs an opportunity to be heard on the issue before they do. But in the circus, the clowns are king.

 

[PaulD]

Is anyone else bothered by the wording "split decision" in this case"? It was 2-1. While not unanimous I don't view it as a"split" it's sounds kind of sour grapes to me.

Deliberately mischaracterizing something to suit an agenda is is something the antis are very good at. It's called spin and our side needs to employ it more often.

 

[Garys]

Deliberately mischaracterizing something to suit an agenda is is something the antis are very good at. It's called spin and our side needs to employ it more often.

This. In decisions by SCOTUS if the vote is 5-4 (as in Heller) the lame stream media will say that "a sharply divided Supreme Court narrowly...) as if the vote count matters. The count doesn't matter, a majority is a majority. A 5-4 case is no less decided than a 6-3, 7-2, 8-1, or 9-0. The media just wants to frame the story to support their predetermined agenda.

 

[Coyote33]

... BTW: A little more on procedure. We will find out today if the court takes this or not. If nothing by the end of the day, then Peruta is minted. CA9 needs to give the plaintiff's lawyers a chance to argue for no en banc. That is what would come down today.

8:26 here, which means it is 5:26 in California. Any word?

 

[jar]

This. In decisions by SCOTUS if the vote is 5-4 (as in Heller) the lame stream media will say that "a sharply divided Supreme Court narrowly...) as if the vote count matters. The count doesn't matter, a majority is a majority. A 5-4 case is no less decided than a 6-3, 7-2, 8-1, or 9-0. The media just wants to frame the story to support their predetermined agenda.

I disagree. If Heller was 9-0 we wouldn't have the problem we have of most of the lower courts acting like the dissent is the controlling opinion. Court watchers of all political stripes use the same language.

 

[cekim]

I disagree. If Heller was 9-0 we wouldn't have the problem we have of most of the lower courts acting like the dissent is the controlling opinion. Court watchers of all political stripes use the same language.

It is part of very powerful "groupthink" logic. "We are not alone". "Some substantial number of or influential persons agree with us".

Humans are remarkably susceptible to peer pressure which means that the opinions of 2 carry more weight that the opinions of 1.

So, you don't say "2:1" you say "there are judges who agree".

As you point out, this language is used by both sides for the same reason.

As we know from flat earths around which the sun and universe revolve, it has no bearing on actual correctness of said opinion.

 

[Quiet]

More than 66%, in fact almost 67% of all judges officially asked for their opinion on this case said that they agree with this ruling... and they were all judges at the Appellate Level, too!

 

[PaulD]

I disagree. If Heller was 9-0 we wouldn't have the problem we have of most of the lower courts acting like the dissent is the controlling opinion. Court watchers of all political stripes use the same language.

You're both right and are talking past each other. In SCOTUS cases, a 5-4 ruling is as good as a 9-0 ruling. It's decided. If it had been 9-0, the lame stream media would say something like "The still controversial Heller ruling" or some such BS. Also, had it been 9-0, maybe the circuit courts would feel less empowered to ignore it, but I'm sure the state courts in MA would keep doing what they damn well please.