search
top

Civil Rights Victory in the 9th Circuit

According to NRA’s Annual Firearms Law seminar, the 9th Circuit has denied the Brady Center’s and State of California’s motion to intervene! Remember that the Sheriff who was the defendant in this case declined to file for an en banc rehearing, putting Brady and the Kamala Harris into a panic. Needless to say this is good news, because it means the Peruta decision holds, making California, Hawaii and our pacific territories shall-issue. Savor the victory California and Hawaii, you deserve it. Something tells me the folks at the Brady Center are going to be very sad pandas today.

13 Responses to “Civil Rights Victory in the 9th Circuit”

  1. The_Jack says:

    One question. The 9th itself can in such a case call en banc on its own. Has the period for the court do make such a decision passed?

  2. PT says:

    Hawaii still can en banc their case. The state of Hawaii was granted intervenor status in their case based on Peruta. Not out of the woods yet.

    • Matthew Carberry says:

      Also Richards in a different California county. Both were decided based on Peruta and both chief LEOs stated they intended to appeal but, as I recall, they had to wait until Peruta was decided.

      • AntiCitizenOne says:

        Let’s hope Sheriff Prieto is stupid enough to take it to the Supreme Court very soon then.

  3. Jacob says:

    From back here behind the Lead Curtain in the Second Circuit, I was kind of hoping the controversy in Peruta would continue – we’re running out of vehicles to get this split in front of SCOTUS.

    • Matthew Carberry says:

      Peruta *is* the split. 7th and 9th versus, essentially, the rest of the Circuits with May-Issue states.

      • Jacob says:

        Correct, but with Peruta decided and no longer “alive” procedurally, how does the split get resolved? The Hawaii case? If Hawaii loses, takes its lumps, and doesn’t appeal any further, the issue may never come to a head.

        • Matthew Carberry says:

          It’s still an extant split nationwide. SCOTUS can take it at that point regardless of appeal by Richards and Baker.

  4. Matthew Carberry says:

    Can’t wait to see CA and HI go red on the “shall-issue” timeline map, like IL did.

    That will make clear that being anti-carry rights is a small, regional idea, bitterly clung to by a mere handful of small states on the northern Atlantic seaboard.

    • The Jack says:

      It’ll also make DC’s May Issue attempt all the more precarious.

    • Joe_in_Pitt says:

      I envision the last state to bitterly cling to the anti-carry mindset would be New York, considering it’s entire licensing scheme is based on a 100+ year old law born from racism and corruption.

      • Zermoid says:

        NJ is also in the May Issue camp, and is in reality a won’t issue state.

        • HSR47 says:

          The real “won’t issue” state is MD: Licensing is handled centrally by the state police which makes it easy for them to consistently deny pretty much everyone, which in turn has made it difficult to challenge due to the courts imagining a lack of standing (Woollard was able to proceed because he had been issued a Wear and Carry Permit, and was denied on renewal, and thus could not be thrown out due to an imagined lack of standing).

          In NJ, permitting is handled by going to your local PD, who then makes a recommendation to a judge regarding issuance. This leaves far more potential for issuance, especially for those with sufficient connections.

          CA and NY are fairly similar in that discretion is local, but the license is good throughout the state (except NYC, which has been allowed too much local autonomy). This largely leads to rural sheriffs issuing on a largely shall-issue basis, while urban sheriffs try to avoid issuing as much as they can.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Episode 284 – John Pierce | The Polite Society Podcast - […] 19-Some good news out of California. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied the motion by California Attorney General…
top