Dave Hardy talks about the next steps. There’s an interesting dynamic at work here. Our opponents have started to wise up a bit, in the sense that they realize taking cases forward when the Heller majority is still in place is probably not the wisest of moves. Dave Hardy notes that there are twice as many Democratic appointees on the 9th Circuit as Republican appointees, so this would, in my view, make the panel much more likely to reverse than uphold the three-judge ruling in Peruta. But that would put the decision to appeal to SCOTUS back in the NRA’s hands. Will San Diego County want to risk rolling the dice? Â Will Bloomberg and other gun control groups pressure San Diego not to appeal?
14 thoughts on “A Look at What’s Next for Peruta”
Comments are closed.
It seems like there are lots of ways this could go, with the majority of them (and the momentum) favoring gun rights. Each of these rulings is important because the more gun owners with “skin in the game” the more blocking those rights seems unconscionable. As you’ve pointed out, concealed carry is probably the foremost way (after hunting, but even those numbers are declining) to keep the shooting culture alive. The antis are aware of that, too.
I’m thinking an en banc ruling wouldn’t be the best for Peruta, too. Will CA listen to reason or to Mike Bloomberg?
Normally I’d say I hope for the win and that they accept the ruling and not appeal. But if the antis wait until Obama has replaced one of the Heller 5 to take up a carry case well really be screwed. Wherever this goes hopefully well still be celebrating this next year.
there are a couple of problems. the 9th onyl takes about 1 en banc a year. They also are very slow at it and it could be used as a delay tactic to see if their luck changes. They should really think about appealing. if not for a delay tactic to stall for say 24 months, the High court already knows that Paul Clement is on the case and would be before them again.
Remember, our opponents did not appeal the 7th’s ruling to SCOTUS for fear of losing.
Their pride may say appeal, they may feint that way. But for them all they would have lost is the 9th. Hawaii becomes impacte as does California where they could re-write the law to cuase more problems with their anti-gun legislature and drag this out even longer, forcing a new law suit.
There is the triage question for the Antis.
They decided playing out the clock and trying to win via legislation was better than further court challenges in Illinois.
For fear of a domino effect.
Now with California under the block, a similar calculus is at hand.
Though Cali already has the mechanism for permitting and issuing in every county so the legislative situation is different over there.
Still, California is a very populous state and much of the anti’s “juice” comes from having people living under their laws and considering them normal.
Letting Cali go Shall issue would be, roughly, a reduction of 1/3 of the US population living under May issue to 1/5 of the US population.
The antis might feel that they can’t afford to let Cali go over.
The problem is that waiting for SCOTUS to go over means they’d risk letting Cali go Shall Issue if enblanc doesn’t reverse.
The problem with it going to SCOTS is I’m not as confident that Kennedy will stay on our side the time even though it is “keep and BARE arms”
Like Bloomberg isn’t comfortable bribing politicians and judges. He goes and buys entire elections; He would do the same with this. Only thing is now it’s almost toxic. But most of those judges in the Ninth Circuit probably hate freedom just as much as Bloomberg. I wouldnt be surprised if they say there’s no legitimate right to self-defense. I would even suspect that the judges would make the guy who types the stuff whose name I forget stop typing so they can then say “off the record” that got owner should be rounded up and executed by the government en masse without trial. Just like the fucking turd from the courant. Oh he didn’t say that we should be killed but you know he thinks it.
If I were the antis, I’d pass a “shall issue” law in Cali.
The law would allow licensed individuals to openly carry an unloaded firearm. There would be a long list of arbitrary “no carry” places (they already have state GFZ bubbles around schools — expand the concept to include all public buildings, places that serve alcohol, etc), with violation a serious misdemeanor with three year sentence (thus being a prohibiting offense). The permit would require 40 hours of training, take 180 days to process, cost $500, and expire every 24 months. It would be issued for the specific pistol (down to the S/N) you qualified with. And there’d be myriad ways to delay issuance.
Bam — open carry “allowed.” Case goes away, no?
I thought that too. I not sure exactly how much of this case hinged on CA banning open carry, but I’ve heard it mentioned as a factor. If they just went back to their old law, would that satisfy the decision? Under the old law, it was pointless to practice open carry short of for political demonstrations. It was practically useless for self-defense, and you’re almost guaranteed to have the cops point guns at you and check to see if your gun is unloaded every time you step out the door. Maybe the politicians could tolerate a few political demonstrations now if they stop and think about the alternative?
I wouldn’t necessarily think need for suing goes away, because such restrictions would probably be worthy of challenge…but this particular case almost certainly goes away.
Would the Antis attempt this? It’s hard to say…
And, who knows? Such a law might backfire. For one thing, it will open the door for carry once again, and for another, things like 40-hour requirements for training, 180 day processing, and $500 fees, all repeatable every 24 months, will open the door to “right delayed, right denied” lawsuits…
If you read Perulta, and the Perulta majority opinion reasoning is upheld by SCOTUS (even in another case, if CA doesn’t appeal Perulta), what you propose would almost certainly turn California into Constitutional Carry.
As Perulta says, “The Court ruled that a government may specify what mode of carrying to allow (open or concealed), but a government may not make it impossible for the vast majority of Californians to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms. . .
“Clearly, the California scheme does not prevent every person from bearing arms outside the home in every circumstance. But the fact that a small group of people have the ability to exercise their right to bear arms does not end our inquiry. . . Thus, the question is not whether the California scheme. . . allows some people to bear arms outside the home in some places at some times; instead, the question is whether it allows the typical responsible, law-abiding citizen to bear arms in public for the lawful purpose of self-defense. The answer to the latter question is a resounding ‘no.’†[emphasis in bold added]
Make too many hoops to jump through and exceptions, so a typical law abiding person cannot reasonably carry in public, because they would be violating teh law in half the city, and your law kills itself, under Perulta.
Please do not give the antis any ideas. Senator Leland Yee’s office had staffers monitoring Calguns.net during the run up to various bills he was sponsoring that would impact semiauto rifles, and they would read ideas for workarounds and change the bill to address the issue raised.
Someone more knowledgeable might correct me here, but I believe that CA’s permit does require I.D.-ing the gun down to the serial number. Up to three guns on the permit, if I recall correctly.
So, that bit is already embedded in their system.
Jim
Sunk New Dawn
Galveston, TX
Correct. My permit lists the make, model, caliber, and serial of the three guns that I am allowed to carry concealed. The SD Sheriff refused to allow more, despite the application saying I could.
There is no statutory limit of 3 guns on the permit. It is left to each issuing authority (IA). The permit does identify the firearms by make, model, serial number and caliber. I would know, I have 4 listed on mine. And I go for range qualification (renewal) on Sunday, so I’ll be making it 5, time permitting. Otherwise I’ll put 4 back on, with one change, then add the 5th at the next available qualification appointment.
The formatting of the permit paper presumes 3, but that’s it.