Ninth Circuit Hands Down Baker Ruling

As expected, the 9th Circuit has handed down a decision in the case of Baker v. Kealoah. There aren’t really any surprises. The decision is vacated and remanded back to the lower court in light of Peruta. I should note that the decision does not yet make Hawaii shall-issue. Hawaii still has a chance to appeal the ruling en banc in front of the entire 9th Circuit. Even if they decline to appeal, the case still has to go back to the lower court, and the lower court has to enjoin the State of Hawaii. It’s not clear, in that instance, whether Hawaii will become a shall-issue state, or whether they’ll be enjoined from enforcing their concealed weapons laws as a whole, making the situation more like Illinois than like California. We shall see.

8 thoughts on “Ninth Circuit Hands Down Baker Ruling”

  1. I hadn’t seen the bit attached at the end in Peruta nor Richards about the requirements for asking for a rehearing, or for a rehearing en banc.

    Looks like only the second two reasons would apply to any of the three cases.

    “Petition for Panel Rehearing (Fed. R. App. P. 40; 9th Cir. R. 40-1)
    Petition for Rehearing En Banc (Fed. R. App. P. 35; 9th Cir. R. 35-1 to -3)

    (1) A. Purpose (Panel Rehearing):
    • A party should seek panel rehearing only if one or more of the following grounds exist:
    A material point of fact or law was overlooked in the decision;
    A change in the law occurred after the case was submitted which appears to have been overlooked by the panel; or
    An apparent conflict with another decision of the Court was not
    addressed in the opinion.
    • Do not file a petition for panel rehearing merely to reargue the case.

    B. Purpose (Rehearing En Banc)
    • A party should seek en banc rehearing only if one or more of the following grounds exist:

    Consideration by the full Court is necessary to secure or maintain uniformity of the Court’s decisions; or

    The proceeding involves a question of exceptional importance; or

    The opinion directly conflicts with an existing opinion by another court of appeals or the Supreme Court and substantially affects a rule of national application in which there is an overriding need for national uniformity.”

  2. They cannot go Illinois of old, because the Peruta decision specifies that some form of carry must be allowed without subjective permitting.

    The HI court can buy the HI legislature time to inflict emergency safety regulations on the people.

    HI will do everything in their power to slow this down. But if CA AG does not get her en banc, then neither would HI. This assumes they let the AG intervene. Then HI would have to push an appeal above the Ninth, assuming someone in CA does not.

    It all comes down to the en banc decision(s). If EB is denied, then you can be pretty sure one of the affected defendants is going to appeal.

  3. Anon, he meant Illinois post-Moore but pre-shall-issue legislation. When it would have been (absent the stay) essentially “FOID” carry.

  4. The ninth circuit court has a lot of nerve. After so many years of personal derision from me, they’ve come out with 2 recent decisions that lead me to think that some of the justices have actually read, understand, and agree with the U.S. Constitution. (ya’ know…the cumbersome oaths they took when they accepted their cushy appointments)

    No, I must be drunk-dreaming. Reality (WH, DOJ-imposed) will surely come crashing down soon.

  5. I have searched for more information on what this decision means. If I understand correctly the district court has to revise it decision that Baker did not have 2 amendment protections. So I am curious in the revised decisions.

    Many District Courts do not take the 2 nd amendment seriously and just brush off claims of unconstitutionally. Once District Courts take these claims more seriously abrogations of our rights will get less common.

  6. I wonder under which rationale the Sheriff (or AG) will call for en banc?

    If they call for it based on a “question of exceptional importance”, which would seem the play if they want to keep it “in house” and away from the Supremes, the Sheriff and AG will be arguing to keep the status quo statewide even though some counties’ state-valid permits are issued with “self-defense” meeting “good cause” and some aren’t. That leaves open an unequal treatment argument.

    Their only other choice is essentially to claim Circuit Split/Nat’l Importance, which would be a straight shot to the Heller Supremes.

    1. Assuming there is some nat’l consultation between the anti-rights crowd, I’d love to be a bug on the wall. This is when they decide what hill to die on.

      I’d think Bloomberg et al won’t want to push to SCOTUS at this point and Harris is vulnerable to Bloomy/DNC political money pressure.

      Ironically, the sheriffs have been *our* fly in their ointment by mostly backing gun rights in CO, CT, and NY. In this case the Yolo Cty sheriff, if he has no larger political goals, may be a wild card who can’t be controlled with political donations. If he goes anti-gun true believer for the Circuit Split rationale the anti’s may be fighting a battle they didn’t plan on.

Comments are closed.