Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Peruta and Richards decisions vacated - en banc petitions granted

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

    Thumbs up Peruta and Richards decisions vacated - en banc petitions granted

    It should not surprise anyone to hear that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has vacated the Peruta v. San Diego and Richards v. Prieto appellate decisions. The en banc petitions were granted and the case will be reheard before an 11 judge panel the week of June 15th.

    I will shortly be filing a petition to have the appeal of my Open Carry case (Nichols v. Brown) be initially heard en banc and hopefully, heard before the same en banc panel. The latter part might be a bit tricky as I did not expect for the oral arguments to be scheduled so soon after granting the en banc petitions.


    03/26/2015 193 Filed Order for PUBLICATION (SIDNEY R. THOMAS) Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35(a) and Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion and order denying motions to intervene shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.[9473535] (RP) [Entered: 03/26/2015 12:53 PM]
    03/26/2015 194 Filed order (SIDNEY R. THOMAS) En banc oral argument will take place during the week of June 15, 2015, in San Francisco, California. The date and time will be determined by separate order. For further information or special requests regarding scheduling, please contact Deputy Clerk Paul Keller at paul_keller@ca9.uscourts.gov or (415) 355-8026. Within seven days from the date of this order, the parties shall forward to the Clerk of Court twenty-five additional paper copies of the original briefs (including supplemental and amicus briefs) and excerpts of record. The paper copies must be accompanied by certification (attached to the end of each copy of the brief) that the brief is identical to the version submitted electronically. A sample certificate is available at http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...rtificate-for- Brief-in-Paper-Format.pdf. The paper copies shall be printed from the PDF version of the brief created from the word processing application, not from PACER or Appellate ECF. [9473833] (SM) [Entered: 03/26/2015 02:42 PM]

    For more information on Peruta v. San Diego click here.
    For more information on Richards v. Prieto click here.
    For more information on Nichols v. Brown click here.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	NRA Suckers.jpg 
Views:	124 
Size:	97.4 KB 
ID:	12442

    https://youtu.be/UaxxuyBvB-M
    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

  2. #2
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    463

    Smile Richards v. Prieto consolidated with Peruta

    Edit: April 6 - We now know how much time each side will have - 30 minutes. The NRA & SAF will be getting 15 minutes each.

    Today, April 1, 2015, both Richards v. Prieto and Peruta v. San Diego have been consolidated for the en banc oral arguments which means that the time (30 minutes per side) will now be split between Alan Gura and whomever the NRA picks to participate in oral arguments.
    Last edited by California Right To Carry; 04-06-2015 at 06:24 PM. Reason: We now know how much time each side will have.
    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

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
    Posts
    408
    Quote Originally Posted by California Right To Carry View Post
    Today, April 1, 2015, both Richards v. Prieto and Peruta v. San Diego have been consolidated for the en banc oral arguments which means that the time (10-20 minutes per side) will now be split between Alan Gura and whomever the NRA picks to participate in oral arguments. I don't think there is anything preventing the en banc court from limiting each side to ten minutes but I suspect that each side will get twenty minutes giving Gura ten minutes and the NRA lawyer ten minutes.
    Paul Clement would be my guess for the NRA.

  4. #4
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    463
    Quote Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
    Paul Clement would be my guess for the NRA.
    Mine as well but given the shortened argument time allowed, the nature of the case, and the $1,100 and hour Clement charges, I won't be surprised to see some other attorney make an appearance for Peruta.
    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

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bainbridge Island, Wa
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by California Right To Carry View Post
    Mine as well but given the shortened argument time allowed, the nature of the case, and the $1,100 and hour Clement charges, I won't be surprised to see some other attorney make an appearance for Peruta.
    One would hope a case like this would require less money to the lawyers for the cause. But then again less money for lawyers is a bit oxy moronic

  6. #6
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    463
    Quote Originally Posted by FattyKrack View Post
    One would hope a case like this would require less money to the lawyers for the cause. But then again less money for lawyers is a bit oxy moronic
    Lawyers are professional liars. To paraphrase Chief Justice Roberts during his confirmation hearings in response to a same-sex marriage question he said that he is a lawyer. He went on to say that his position depends upon the position of the first person who walks in his door and writes him a sufficiently large cheque.

    If I were Clements I would look at it this way. If someone else argues before the en banc court and loses, and loss is pretty much inevitable, then he can say that it was because he did not argue the case while pointing out that he won the case when he argued it before the three judge panel.

    Of course were the NRA to write him a sufficiently large cheque persuasive enough for him to argue the case before the en banc panel and he loses, Clements can always say the loss was inevitable and point to any favorable dissent and attribute them to his efforts.
    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
  •