Peruta v. San Diego Full Court Petitions Denied.

Update August 15, 2016 by Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry – FULL COURT PETITION DENIED. Now we wait for the mandate to issue (7 to 30 days from August 15, 2016) at which point this case is over as far as the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is concerned. All that is left for the plaintiffs is to file a cert petition with the US Supreme Court which will be denied.

The following transaction was entered on 08/15/2016 at 1:24:41 PM PDT and filed on 08/15/2016

Case Name: Edward Peruta, et al v. County of San Diego, et al
Case Number: 10-56971


Docket Text:
Filed order (SIDNEY R. THOMAS) The full court was advised of appellants’ petitions for full court en banc rehearing (Docket Entry Nos. [334] and [335]). A judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc by the full court. The matter failed to receive a majority of the votes of the nonrecused active judges in favor of full court en banc consideration. Fed. R. App. P. 35. Accordingly, the petitions for full court en banc rehearing (Docket Entry Nos. [334] and [335]) are denied. In No. 10-56971, appellants’ motion for leave to file a reply brief (Docket Entry No. [344]) is denied as moot. [10087152] [10-56971, 11-16255] (OC)

http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=4712

California Right To Carry said:

Update August 15, 2016 by Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry – FULL COURT PETITION DENIED. Now we wait for the mandate to issue (7 to 30 days from August 15, 2016) at which point this case is over as far as the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is concerned. All that is left for the plaintiffs is to file a cert petition with the US Supreme Court which will be denied.
...

Click to expand...

And yet again it is a shame to see a supposed, and claimed supporter of RKBA pleased to see a pro-RKBA suit failing.

I do not understand why some folks seem to think that being pro-OC should equate to being hostile to CC or vice-versa.

Would that advancing our lawful ability to carry firearms for an effective self-defense were more important than personal ego.

Charles

I am amused by postings that lack any information that would supply the casual reader what the hell they are talking about.:banghead:

color of law said:

I am amused by postings that lack any information that would supply the casual reader what the hell they are talking about.:banghead:

Click to expand...

I think that if one so desires, one can click the linked page for more info ... most have been watching.

And I agree with utbagpiper ... both OC and CC are equally protected under our natural rights.

color of law said:

I am amused by postings that lack any information that would supply the casual reader what the hell they are talking about.:banghead:

Click to expand...

i am fascinated the forum's soapbox is being used as a medium podium...

ipse

davidmcbeth said:

I think that if one so desires, one can click the linked page for more info ... most have been watching.

And I agree with utbagpiper ... both OC and CC are equally protected under our natural rights.

Click to expand...

So, one clicked and read:

This is a huge victory for the Second Amendment in California. Whether this concession has any effect on concealed carry remains to be seen as ALL of the parties say that there is no right to carry a weapon concealed in public and if there is no right to concealed carry then it does not matter what restrictions are placed on Open Carry. If there is no concealed carry right then there is no concealed carry right. End of story.

Click to expand...

Based on that the above quote I guess the world has been saved. I'm returning to regular programing.