search
top

Richards v. Prieto Reversed and Remanded

Richards is one of the other cases being appealed through the 9th Circuit in regards to carry. The decision can be found here. The one dissenting judge in Peruta also noted he would have voted to uphold the “good cause” requirement, but agreed with the majority in this case because Pretua is controlling. The suit in Richards was against Yolo County, in the middle of the state.

h/t to a reader who emailed a link to the Calguns forum.

UPDATE: Anyone have anything on the Hawaii case? Looking now.

UPDATE: SAF’s press release on the case.

16 Responses to “Richards v. Prieto Reversed and Remanded”

  1. Matthew Carberry says:

    I couldn’t even find this one on the 9th’s website a bit ago. Mr. Baker will probably be our first source.

  2. Patrick H says:

    Wow the courts get it right once and a while! Great news though.

    • Geodkyt says:

      Same court, same judges, same day, basically the same arguments.

      They really didn;t have a choice, but to rule the way they did. In fact, reading the concurrance (by the one judge who dissented in Perulta) makes that clear — he concurred solely because Perulta created a precedent, and stare decisis binds him to that precendent unless it is overturned by a later en banc or SCOTUS ruling. (In fact, his concurrance could be reasonably viewed as a cry for the liberals on the 9th Circuit to rescue the antigun side by rehearing it en banc, which they can do even if no appeal with standing is entered.)

  3. Ed says:

    Without reciprocity and/or issuing non-resident permits, the State of California is in my opinion is still violating the people’s 2nd amendment right. Since incorporation was done via the 14th amendment the equal protection clause is in play. At this point non-residents of California’s 2nd amendment rights are not being equally protected.

    • Matthew Carberry says:

      Baby steps. Once shall-issue is secure in CA then we force reciprocity in the 9th (on Oregon too).

    • Patrick says:

      What Ed and Matthew said.

      One of the reasons reciprocity has been hard to push out of congress was the supposed 10th Amendment issue. There is no such issue, but some lawmakers were getting heartburn about it from some gun constituencies. Odd. Others didn’t want to work hard to get something out knowing full well that some circuit somewhere would strike the law as impermissible, because SCOTUS hasn’t yet ruled the issue conclusively.

      Once the carry question is finally answered, the congress can step in without as much risk.

      And yes, you really do want the congress to force states to accept permits from other states. It won’t make permissive states harder – the laws have never been crafted to require a permit in those states do not require one (unless you travel out of state), and the writers know the issues involved. The big reason you want this is because if you go to grandma’s out of state house with your kids for Christmas, you should be safe from abuse by political subdivisions carrying badges.

      And there is no such thing as “States Rights”, anyway. States are governments and no government has rights. Only people have rights. Governments have powers, and they use them against the people. The Tenth allows a state to discriminate against gun holders the same way it allows a state to discriminate against Jews. The rights of the People should trump state powers.

  4. NotClauswitz says:

    Yay Yolo! Like sands in an hourglass…dominoes are tumbling and foundations crumbling.
    Yolo County is home to the multi-billion-dollar California tomato industry that dominates 90% of the canned and processed tomato market in the United States (Wikipedia). The town of Davis is the Democrat stronghold that dominates the voting in the entire county. If the University at Davis were to move or change, the whole political balance of CA would be un-pinned…

  5. punaperson says:

    The Hawaii Baker case can’t be too far behind, argued the at the same time to the same panel on December 6, 2012. Yeah, 15 months. The Hawaii case is essentially the same (except that Hawaii issues NO (ZERO) CCW permits), but the language in Hawaii is “exceptional case” rather than California’s “good cause”. Same difference… infringement on the right to bear arms for self defense. I hope it doesn’t take another three weeks to announce the Baker decision… all they have to do, as in Richards, is write “Ditto. Peruta/Richards”. Keep your fingers crossed for us! Aloha!

    • Sebastian says:

      We (the collective “we” who run this blog, which is to say Bitter, really) have family connection to the State of Hawaii, so we’re very eager to see shall-issue become the law in the Aloha State. It would be a sweet-sweet victory.

      • punaperson says:

        The legislators and politicians (AG, Governor, etc.) will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into actually having Constitutional laws regarding firearms here. There is a long laundry list of unconstitutional “regulations” that include “permit to acquire” with 14 to 21 day “waiting period”, “registration” (three trips to the police station during weekday work hours only), ban on “assault pistols”, 10 round mag limit for handguns, etc. It’s going to be a long, slow battle to have our rights restored, as the people in power here have absolutely no respect for the Second Amendment. The Brady Campaign rates Hawaii number 7 in terms of the most draconian gun laws, and the pols here are determined to keep it that way, or move further up the scale into California and New York territory.

        • Matthew Carberry says:

          The minute you get voters carrying you have a bloc with skin in the game to start pushing changes. That scares the anti-politicians, so I’d bet if anyone appeals it’ll be Hawai’i. The county Sheriffs in Cali have the political cover to “go along to get along”, if Yolo sheriff doesn’t appeal, the AG’s play fails, and no judge calls for en banc in Peruta; there’s no reason to believe Yolo will change that. Why the second but not the first since the outcome is the same? Especially since Ventura and Orange have essentially acquiesced.

          If Baker is appealed, would that necessarily stay Peruta/Yolo? Diff states after all.

      • harp1034 says:

        I am also interested in the Hawaii case. My oldest daughter lives in Honolulu.

  6. Patrick says:

    San Diego and Yolo. Will Yolo appeal?

    Hawaii up next. They will fight to the end. If (various permutations of Peruta) go the right way, they would probably appeal post-haste.

    Figure if no en banc for Peruta, then both CA AG and Hawaii will appeal. We’d have a decision by June 2015. Otherwise it’s 2017.

  7. rd says:

    Could the court be holding off the Hawaii case until Peruta is finalized? Or is it just that this case is third in the draft & decision cycle?

    Could the Hawaii case get to the court before the Heller majority is changed?

    It would be nice to get this resolved while the good guys have the momentum, but it has taken years to get here.

    • SPQR says:

      There is no reason for them not to enter a decision soon. Probably just clerical at this point.

  8. Jacob says:

    Yolo County? That’s a cool name.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Dominos falling, sandy-foundations crumbling…? | Not Clauswitz - […] to my buddy from the Gunblogger Rendezvous, Sebastien, the tide is shifting the riddle in the sands of an…
top