Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Peruta v. San Diego - Motions to Intervene Denied

  1. #1
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    463

    Exclamation Peruta v. San Diego - Motions to Intervene Denied

    Peruta v. San Diego Appeal 10-56971
    MOTIONS TO INTERVENE DENIED
    November 12, 2014
    Update November 12, 2014 - The Motions to intervene in the Peruta case were denied. The Order can be read here. I am of the opinion that this can still be appealed via the Peruta case but if it can’t, the Peruta decision can still be appealed indirectly via the Richard’s v. Prieto and Baker v. Kealoha cases and, of course, the Peruta opinion can be appealed indirectly through my case Nichols v. Brown should the Court of Appeals decide that Peruta bars asking for the relief I sought in my lawsuit. Regardless, somebody is going to be filing a cert petition with SCOTUS before all is said and done in this case.
    http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=1575
    Last edited by California Right To Carry; 11-12-2014 at 03:04 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961
    Quote Originally Posted by California Right To Carry View Post
    Peruta v. San Diego Appeal 10-56971
    MOTIONS TO INTERVENE DENIED
    November 12, 2014
    Update November 12, 2014 - The Motions to intervene in the Peruta case were denied. The Order can be read here. I am of the opinion that this can still be appealed via the Peruta case but if it can’t, the Peruta decision can still be appealed indirectly via the Richard’s v. Prieto and Baker v. Kealoha cases and, of course, the Peruta opinion can be appealed indirectly through my case Nichols v. Brown should the Court of Appeals decide that Peruta bars asking for the relief I sought in my lawsuit. Regardless, somebody is going to be filing a cert petition with SCOTUS before all is said and done in this case.
    http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=1575

    about time. The end game for California "may issue" might actually be revealed this year.
    Last edited by Thundar; 11-12-2014 at 05:50 PM.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    84
    Why cant Richards just withdraw their case and remove the ability for Harris to intervene ?
    Last edited by NosePicker; 11-13-2014 at 02:40 AM.

  4. #4
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by NosePicker View Post
    Why cant Prieto just withdraw their case and remove the ability for Harris to intervene ?
    Tell my just why would Peurta even want to do as you suggest since He has WON his case at this point and the State AG has failed to get the Judge to allow them to intervene. Even IF Harris were to appeal this judges decision to a higher court I don't see the higher court ruling against Peruta.
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeSparky View Post
    Tell my just why would Peurta even want to do as you suggest since He has WON his case at this point and the State AG has failed to get the Judge to allow them to intervene. Even IF Harris were to appeal this judges decision to a higher court I don't see the higher court ruling against Peruta.
    I am referring to the Richards vs Prieto case NOT the Peruta case. I meant to say "shouldn't Richards" withdraw their case so Harris cant intervene in it.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757
    Quote Originally Posted by NosePicker View Post
    I am referring to the Richards vs Prieto case NOT the Peruta case. I meant to say "shouldn't Richards" withdraw their case so Harris cant intervene in it.
    Interesting and insightful point to bring up. However, you may want to read what Eugene Volokh had to say about the impact of en blanc denial in the Peruta case:

    ". .. as a practical matter, though, this decision probably doesn’t mean much, because the same issue has been raised in Baker v. Kealoha, which challenges Honolulu’s restrictive licensing scheme, and in Richards v. Prieto, which challenges the Yolo County (California) scheme. The panel held in plaintiffs’ favor in those cases, citing Peruta, and those defendants did file en banc rehearing petitions. So the Ninth Circuit will now consider those petitions. Stay tuned for what the Ninth Circuit does . . ."

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/v...rds-and-baker/

    So it appears likely that either the state of California or Hawaii will get an blanc review in the end.

    Unfortunately, its still too early to get excited over this recent development. I fear that the litigation will go on for months if not years more.
    Last edited by OC4me; 11-13-2014 at 09:40 AM.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Now what they going to do with the homeless who are legally armed? Better call Magnum PI !

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by OC4me View Post
    Interesting and insightful point to bring up. However, you may want to read what Eugene Volokh had to say about the impact of en blanc denial in the Peruta case:

    ". .. as a practical matter, though, this decision probably doesn’t mean much, because the same issue has been raised in Baker v. Kealoha, which challenges Honolulu’s restrictive licensing scheme, and in Richards v. Prieto, which challenges the Yolo County (California) scheme. The panel held in plaintiffs’ favor in those cases, citing Peruta, and those defendants did file en banc rehearing petitions. So the Ninth Circuit will now consider those petitions. Stay tuned for what the Ninth Circuit does . . ."

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/v...rds-and-baker/

    So it appears likely that either the state of California or Hawaii will get an blanc review in the end.

    Unfortunately, its still too early to get excited over this recent development. I fear that the litigation will go on for months if not years more.

    This is exactly my point. If both of those cases withdrew their appeals and ended the case, there would be NO review and NO challenge. Peruta would be the only case and its ruling would be the law of the land (for the 9th circuit).

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757
    Quote Originally Posted by NosePicker View Post
    This is exactly my point. If both of those cases withdrew their appeals and ended the case, there would be NO review and NO challenge. Peruta would be the only case and its ruling would be the law of the land (for the 9th circuit).
    Yes, sorry! I initially got that point but somehow let it slide away . . . getting old I guess ;-) Yes, I think your idea is brilliant. Let's hope that great minds think alike and their legal team has an aha moment...but then again attorneys are paid by the hour ;-/
    Last edited by OC4me; 11-13-2014 at 03:14 PM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    463
    Quote Originally Posted by NosePicker View Post
    This is exactly my point. If both of those cases withdrew their appeals and ended the case, there would be NO review and NO challenge. Peruta would be the only case and its ruling would be the law of the land (for the 9th circuit).
    Peruta is not the "law of the land for the 9th circuit" or even for California. The Peruta decision is limited solely to the policy of San Diego Sheriff Gore and his policy of not accepting self-defense as good cause for being issued a concealed carry permit.

    The Peruta decision is not binding on any other case unless a majority of a three judge panel concludes that the Peruta decision is a persuasive precedent and the facts in the as-applied challenge to some other Sheriff's or police chief's policy warrant the same relief.

    If Richards and Baker drop their lawsuits then the defendant's in their cases can still refuse to issue permits. Nobody, not even Sheriff Gore is required to issue a single permit because of the Peruta decision and only Sheriff Gore is required to accept self-defense as "good cause" for being issued a permit.
    Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don't carry a purse.

    Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by California Right To Carry View Post
    Peruta is not the "law of the land for the 9th circuit" or even for California. The Peruta decision is limited solely to the policy of San Diego Sheriff Gore and his policy of not accepting self-defense as good cause for being issued a concealed carry permit.

    The Peruta decision is not binding on any other case unless a majority of a three judge panel concludes that the Peruta decision is a persuasive precedent and the facts in the as-applied challenge to some other Sheriff's or police chief's policy warrant the same relief.

    If Richards and Baker drop their lawsuits then the defendant's in their cases can still refuse to issue permits. Nobody, not even Sheriff Gore is required to issue a single permit because of the Peruta decision and only Sheriff Gore is required to accept self-defense as "good cause" for being issued a permit.
    I disagree. The "good cause" clause isn't a creation of Sheriff Gore, its state law. The Peruta ruling said the GC clause is unconstitutional. Therefore, the entire state law is ruled unconstitutional, not just SD county and Gore.

  12. #12
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    463
    Quote Originally Posted by NosePicker View Post
    I disagree. The "good cause" clause isn't a creation of Sheriff Gore, its state law. The Peruta ruling said the GC clause is unconstitutional. Therefore, the entire state law is ruled unconstitutional, not just SD county and Gore.
    I would agree that the Peruta Court did just that however judges in this circuit are limited to what the Peruta Court majority said it did and the Peruta Court explicitly said that it was not ruling on the constitutionality of any state law including the state law which allows for County Sheriffs to issue CCWs.

    The Peruta court limited the scope of its decision to the parties in the Peruta case. It will be necessary to file a separate lawsuit to challenge the policy of any other Sheriff or Police Chief and it will be up to a different three judge panel to decide whether or not it should even consider the Peruta decision as no court, except the Peruta district court, is bound by the Peruta decision.

    Even the plaintiffs lawyer recognizes this fact.
    Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don't carry a purse.

    Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

  13. #13
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961
    Quote Originally Posted by California Right To Carry View Post

    The Peruta court limited the scope of its decision to the parties in the Peruta case. It will be necessary to file a separate lawsuit to challenge the policy of any other Sheriff or Police Chief and it will be up to a different three judge panel to decide whether or not it should even consider the Peruta decision as no court, except the Peruta district court, is bound by the Peruta decision.

    Even the plaintiffs lawyer recognizes this fact.
    Well there is a chief of police in Honolulu, HI that has a very different perspective on that. Baker vs. Kaeloha.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  14. #14
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    463
    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    Well there is a chief of police in Honolulu, HI that has a very different perspective on that. Baker vs. Kaeloha.
    What some chief of police or County Sheriff (other than Sheriff Gore) chooses to do or not do in light of the Peruta decision does not change the fact that the Peruta decision does not compel any of them to issue a CCW unless and until a court orders them to do so.

    Baker v. Kealoha was one of three cases heard before the same three judge panel that heard the Peruta case. It isn't too surprising that the same three judge panel in Peruta came to the same conclusion in Baker. The Baker decision and Richards v. Prieto decision is unpublished. Baker and Richards can't be cited in any other case.

    You seem to be thinking that just because two of three judges in Peruta, in a decision in which they said was limited to the to the defendant in that case, somehow constitutes a prior panel decision which every subsequent three judge panel is bound to apply to its separate as-applied case against some other Sheriff or Police Chief?

    It is difficult enough to win a case by citing binding precedents which contained no limiting language as to their precedential power (e.g., Heller and McDonald). The two Peruta Court judges put in lots of language limiting the scope of the Peruta decision and took Baker and Richards completely off the table when it comes to citing precedents in future cases.

    In short, any future three judge panel is free to ignore the Peruta, Richards and Baker decisions and come to the opposite conclusion in those cases without creating an intra-circuit split.
    Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don't carry a purse.

    Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
    Posts
    408
    Quote Originally Posted by California Right To Carry View Post
    What some chief of police or County Sheriff (other than Sheriff Gore) chooses to do or not do in light of the Peruta decision does not change the fact that the Peruta decision does not compel any of them to issue a CCW unless and until a court orders them to do so.

    Baker v. Kealoha was one of three cases heard before the same three judge panel that heard the Peruta case. It isn't too surprising that the same three judge panel in Peruta came to the same conclusion in Baker. The Baker decision and Richards v. Prieto decision is unpublished. Baker and Richards can't be cited in any other case.

    You seem to be thinking that just because two of three judges in Peruta, in a decision in which they said was limited to the to the defendant in that case, somehow constitutes a prior panel decision which every subsequent three judge panel is bound to apply to its separate as-applied case against some other Sheriff or Police Chief?

    It is difficult enough to win a case by citing binding precedents which contained no limiting language as to their precedential power (e.g., Heller and McDonald). The two Peruta Court judges put in lots of language limiting the scope of the Peruta decision and took Baker and Richards completely off the table when it comes to citing precedents in future cases.

    In short, any future three judge panel is free to ignore the Peruta, Richards and Baker decisions and come to the opposite conclusion in those cases without creating an intra-circuit split.
    But someone else applying in SF for example and denied because of "good cause" can simply cite Peruta and that should be it unless that case gets en banc and effectively overturns Peruta? IIRC a 3 judge panel opinion can't be overturned by another 3 judge panel, short of some kind of change or ruling by an en banc panel or SCOTUS.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
    Posts
    408
    Quote Originally Posted by California Right To Carry View Post
    Peruta is not the "law of the land for the 9th circuit" or even for California. The Peruta decision is limited solely to the policy of San Diego Sheriff Gore and his policy of not accepting self-defense as good cause for being issued a concealed carry permit.

    The Peruta decision is not binding on any other case unless a majority of a three judge panel concludes that the Peruta decision is a persuasive precedent and the facts in the as-applied challenge to some other Sheriff's or police chief's policy warrant the same relief.

    If Richards and Baker drop their lawsuits then the defendant's in their cases can still refuse to issue permits. Nobody, not even Sheriff Gore is required to issue a single permit because of the Peruta decision and only Sheriff Gore is required to accept self-defense as "good cause" for being issued a permit.
    But then wouldn't Gore or any other Sheriff refusing to issue period be violating Salute v. Pitchess and CA law?

    And although you're technically correct that it only applies to SD County, the same set of facts would apply to countless other law abiding citizens denied strictly due to good cause, as long as they apply with "self defense".

  17. #17
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    463
    Quote Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
    But someone else applying in SF for example and denied because of "good cause" can simply cite Peruta and that should be it unless that case gets en banc and effectively overturns Peruta? IIRC a 3 judge panel opinion can't be overturned by another 3 judge panel, short of some kind of change or ruling by an en banc panel or SCOTUS.
    You keep wandering into the same logical sandpit that so many others do. Peruta isn't binding on any other 3 judge panel and a simple affirmation of Peruta , or denial of en banc and cert petition, won't broaden the scope of the decision. Some current, or future, 3 judge panel can look at the Peruta decision and find it to be a persuasive precedent but the odds of getting a future 3 judge panel to be "persuaded" by the Peruta decision is pretty slim given the makeup of the pool of 9th Circuit Appellate Court judges.

    Here is a simple analogy, what if the Heller Court and McDonald Court had said that they are limiting the scope of their decisions to the plaintiffs in that case and nothing in their decision(s) should be construed as applying to any other law, state or Federal?

    Would you still be arguing that Heller and McDonald are "binding" on any other court? Well, that's what you have with Peruta. The Peruta decision is a very narrow as-applied challenge to the CCW policy of San Diego Sheriff Gore. The Peruta Court went to great pains to limit the scope of its decision solely to Sheriff Gore's policy.

    Any lawyer who walks into a court, slaps the Peruta decision on the table and demands a CCW for his client is a graduate of the CalGuns.nut School of Law and Refrigerator Repair.

    That isn't to say you won't find a district court judge here and there who will be persuaded but then the case still has to survive the appellate process.
    Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don't carry a purse.

    Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

  18. #18
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    463
    Quote Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
    But then wouldn't Gore or any other Sheriff refusing to issue period be violating Salute v. Pitchess and CA law?

    And although you're technically correct that it only applies to SD County, the same set of facts would apply to countless other law abiding citizens denied strictly due to good cause, as long as they apply with "self defense".
    I don't know what argument you were trying to make with Salute but I suspect whatever it might have been was negated with Gifford v. City of Los Angeles.

    I can think of millions of people in just two counties, Los Angeles and San Francisco, with far more restrictive policies. Nevertheless, the Peruta decision and fifty cents won't get a lawyer's client a cup of coffee let alone a CCW.

    What California law are you referring to? There has never been a general right to concealed carry in California and even the common law, and former statutory, right for travelers while actually on a journey to carry weapons concealed is gone under today's law.
    Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don't carry a purse.

    Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
    Posts
    408
    Quote Originally Posted by California Right To Carry View Post
    You keep wandering into the same logical sandpit that so many others do. Peruta isn't binding on any other 3 judge panel and a simple affirmation of Peruta , or denial of en banc and cert petition, won't broaden the scope of the decision. Some current, or future, 3 judge panel can look at the Peruta decision and find it to be a persuasive precedent but the odds of getting a future 3 judge panel to be "persuaded" by the Peruta decision is pretty slim given the makeup of the pool of 9th Circuit Appellate Court judges.

    Here is a simple analogy, what if the Heller Court and McDonald Court had said that they are limiting the scope of their decisions to the plaintiffs in that case and nothing in their decision(s) should be construed as applying to any other law, state or Federal?

    Would you still be arguing that Heller and McDonald are "binding" on any other court? Well, that's what you have with Peruta. The Peruta decision is a very narrow as-applied challenge to the CCW policy of San Diego Sheriff Gore. The Peruta Court went to great pains to limit the scope of its decision solely to Sheriff Gore's policy.

    Any lawyer who walks into a court, slaps the Peruta decision on the table and demands a CCW for his client is a graduate of the CalGuns.nut School of Law and Refrigerator Repair.

    That isn't to say you won't find a district court judge here and there who will be persuaded but then the case still has to survive the appellate process.
    But what's the material difference between Gore's policy and that of any other restrictive sheriff in CA, in regards to using "self defense" as a reason? Even the dissenter, Thomas, agreed in Richards that if Peruta were upheld, then Yolo's policy is also invalid. I would think if another 3 judge panel goes another way then it should logically trigger an intra circuit split and have to go to en banc.

  20. #20
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    463
    Quote Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
    But what's the material difference between Gore's policy and that of any other restrictive sheriff in CA, in regards to using "self defense" as a reason? Even the dissenter, Thomas, agreed in Richards that if Peruta were upheld, then Yolo's policy is also invalid. I would think if another 3 judge panel goes another way then it should logically trigger an intra circuit split and have to go to en banc.
    Peruta in and of itself has already created an intra-circuit split, that was one of the reasons the AG gave in her en banc petition. Peruta has also created circuit splits with every state and Federal court of appeals.

    Sheriff Prieto's policy ("Yolo's") was before the same three judges as was Peruta, they had jurisdiction over those two Sheriff's. They did not, and do not have, jurisdiction over any other policy of any other Sheriff. If you don't like the CCW policy of say, the San Francisco or Los Angeles County Sheriffs' CCW policies then you will have to file a lawsuit and argue why Peruta, which is at best persuasive, applies to your case. After a year or two of litigation you, or the opposing party will then file an appeal and perhaps a few years after that it will be assigned to a three judge panel, the probability of it being the same three judges in the Peruta/Richards cases being extremely remote. After perhaps another year or two of pondering by the three judge panel, they issue a decision which you have to pray is decided in your favor because it the court of appeals says there is no right under Heller to carry a concealed weapon then your case doesn't create a split between the Circuits, or even a split between other states, which means your cert petition gets stuck in the "dead list" and gets automatically denied. I am unaware of any CCW case filed against San Francisco (county or city or city and county).

    You only need to look at my case for an exemplar. Peruta did not say that there is no Open Carry right. There was a line or two of dicta which said the Peruta plaintiffs were allowed to bring their concealed carry lawsuit because they did not challenge any state law and because they did not bring a broad based open carry challenge.

    It is well established that inferior courts cannot create pleading standards not found in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Just last Monday SCOTUS released a per curium in Johnson v. City of Shelby reminding the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals of that fact. Nonetheless, the district court judge in my case construed the unqualified line of dicta in Peruta to stand for the proposition that I do not have Article III standing to bring my lawsuit. And where the Peruta Court said that it was not ruling on the Constitutionality of any state law the district court in my case said that the Peruta Court validated California's entire licensing scheme. Again, never mind the fact that my lawsuit did not seek to carry a firearm anywhere in the state where a license to carry by others is required and disavowed a challenge to where licenses are required (Gun Free School Zones, state and local government buildings, etc).

    I won't even bother to point out the myriad of other errors the district court made in my case regarding my challenges unrelated to the Second Amendment but suffice it to say, whatever you think the Peruta decision means now or to any future concealed carry lawsuit, you are going to have to cross your fingers and hope that an appellate court agrees with you and, if not, hope that SCOTUS will grant cert in your concealed carry case which it won't.

    A concealed carry case which I suspect you don't have the money to litigate and a concealed carry case which none of the so-called gun rights groups have filed.

    For that matter, the only CCW cases in Los Angeles County that I am aware of are now moot because the plaintiff in one case got his CCW and the plaintiffs in the two other cases have filed new lawsuits claiming residency in counties other than Los Angeles.
    Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don't carry a purse.

    Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

  21. #21
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    463

    Thumbs up Time to stick the procedural fork in Peruta may be close at hand.

    Peruta v. San Diego Appeal 10-56971
    Update November 20, 2014 (12:22 AM) - The motion to stay my case by Attorney General Harris strongly suggests that she believes that the only route left for her to attack the Peruta decision is via the Richards v. Prieto appeal or for the Court of Appeals to call for an en banc hearing on its own. Seven days post denial of the motions to intervene have now passed. The mandate in Peruta can be issued at any time. Attorney General Harris has not filed any motions regarding the mandate or the denial of her motion to intervene and her motion for a rehearing. There are now 14 days remaining for a non-panel judge to make what is known as a 5.4(b) notice request for an en banc hearing. Within the next 14 days any non-panel judge can “stop the clock” for a lone 14 day extension of time. If that doesn’t happen then it may be time to stick the procedural fork in Peruta. This is the simplified version. For a more detailed en banc procedure guide, click here. For an en banc procedure flowchart, click here.
    Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don't carry a purse.

    Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •