Peruta goes en banc

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2015/03/peruta_just_wen.php

"THOMAS, Chief Judge:
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."

Click to expand...

Among other things this could be considered the 3-judge panel getting their wrist slapped.

Either this takes us beyond Heller and McDonald deciding that you have a right to keep and bear arms in the home or it takes us to SCOTUS for a decision on the issue.

Best wishes to Mr. Peruta, the People of California and the rest of the 9th Circuit (can you say "Hawaii"? I knew you could.), and the country as a whole.

stay safe.

Guam and the Marianas Islands are covered by this court too, so this should answer some questions for them as well. However, considering he make up of the court, its by far not a sure thing. You have, currently active, 11 Clinton appointees, 2 Carter, and 7 Obama. On the other side of the line, 2 by Reagan and 7 by Dubya. This could be problematic.

According to Public Law 95-486 (95th Congress, Oct 20, 1978) Section 6 "Any court of appeals having more than 15 judges may constitute itself into administrative units complete with such facilities and staff as prescribed by the administrative office of the United States Courts and may perform its en banc function by such number of members of its en banc courts as may be prescribed by rule of the court of appeals.

9th Circuit has 29 active judges. 20 have been appointed by Anti gun type presidents. An en banc for the 9th is normally 11 judges.

Peruta was decided along party lines, with Chief Justice Thomas being the lone dissenter in the case, as he was in Baker v. Kealoha. It looks to me like an activist judge wants to legislate from the bench, and when he didnt get his way, he called in his cavalry.

The en banc ruling will reverse the 3 judge panel ruling, without a doubt.

Then it's certainly going to go to SCOTUS. If it does, then the question of whether or not the 2A allows for carry of weapons outside the home will be definitively answered. We, as firearms owners and carriers already may not consider it an issue, but make no mistake, it is, and we all know there are people out there willing to fight it tooth and claw. With the current SCOTUS makeup, we stand a very good chance of having that right affirmed and the result hopefully will be pretty much an expansion of the Moore V. Madigan cases from the 7th Circuit.

Heller and McDonald have already settled the fact that the people are allowed to possess firearms, and use them in self defense. Now we get them to say that yes, we can carry them around outside. I suppose in some ways, this might be a good thing.

I'd also be surprised if they heard the case, especially since they already said concealed carry could be banned.

I would NOT expect SCOTUS to hear the case, no matter how the 9th circuit rules. If I recall correctly, every appeal of a second amendment case since McDonald has been denied by SCOTUS. Didn't matter which side won, SCOTUS doesn't seem to want to weigh in anymore.

The point being that when you have disagreements between Circuits and Ciruits without their own opinions cannot decide which competing opinion to use. They are "forced" to send it to SCOTUS for a ruling.

Which, of course, is different than one of the parties to a specific case appealing the fedferal Circuit decision to SCOTUS.

Stragety(sic), as my neice used to say.

stay safe.

The scuttlebutt is SCOTUS is out of the 2nd amendment biz indefinitely, even in the face of circuit conflict. Some say it's because you have 4 pro gun people and 4 anti's and neither side is willing to bet on what Kennedy will do. Another reason is that Heller already cited approvingly cases that said you have a right to openly carry a gun, but that concealed carry could be banned. They're leaving carry to the states.

What I would like SCOTUS to do is protect semi auto's and standard capacity mags, with bans clearly in direct violation of the intent of Heller. We may see the Maryland case get there. That gets rid of the "Assault" weapons ban in Kalifornia and Nazi York, introducing more of the gun culture to their enslaved citizens. It also should get rid of George Bush's 1990 import ban of certain semiauto's.