Edward Peruta V San Diego County: Conceal Carry

[jgoose71 0]

The Ninth Circuit just got through hearing the arguments. Here is the video for those who can stand listening to 1 hour 14 minutes of legalize (I listened to it because I wanted to get a better understanding of the legal precedents the courts have been using in their cases...)

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_video.php?pk_vid=0000007886

What was interesting hearing was that both sides conceded that open cary and concealed carry were not constitutionally guaranteed rights, the right to carry for self-defense was.

And that even though you have the right to carry, the government has the right to regulate. I wonder how this is going to turn out....

Me personally, I believe in constitutional carry, but that is how I grew up. Listening to my rights being legislated away was terrible.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[champu 1]

There is very little chance that the en banc panel will rule in favor of Peruta and Richards. A three judge panel of the 9th already ruled in their favor a year and a half ago and the court elected to rehear the case en banc of its own accord. There's not really much reason for them to do that if they didn't intend to toss the panel's decision.

[jgoose71 0]

champu

There is very little chance that the en banc panel will rule in favor of Peruta and Richards. A three judge panel of the 9th already ruled in their favor a year and a half ago and the court elected to rehear the case en banc of its own accord. There's not really much reason for them to do that if they didn't intend to toss the panel's decision.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a year and a half ago Open carry (as long as the gun was unloaded) was legal in Cali. Just recently that was banned.

With the direct threat (or what-ever they called it) requirement for a conceal- carry permit, you couldn't get a permit without showing a heightened danger to yourself.

With both open carry and concealed carry essentially banned from the average person, this is equal to an all out ban which has been ruled unconstitutional. I do believe this is the premise for the lawsuit. (Even if the lawyers don't admit it, the judges kept asking about it.)

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[BartsDaddy 7]

I wouldn't jump to conclusions in the last year they were 4upheld 6 overturned on enboc. From what I have been told.
And this is also a chess game. It ain't going to be won in one battle. It is a long-term strategy for both parties. One the gun rights activists were slow to come to terms with. But they are catching up and doing well.

Handguns are only used to fight your way to a good rifle

[champu 1]

The change in law regarding open carry occurred after the original complaint was filed in Peruta but well before last year's decision. The change they kept referring to in the oral arguments was AB144:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_0101-0150/ab_144_bill_20110919_enrolled.html

There are no binding precedents that would force the 9th circuit to conclude that a ban on open carry and a de facto ban on concealed carry are, together, unconstitutional.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

champu

The change in law regarding open carry occurred after the original complaint was filed in Peruta but well before last year's decision. The change they kept referring to in the oral arguments was AB144:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_0101-0150/ab_144_bill_20110919_enrolled.html

There are no binding precedents that would force the 9th circuit to conclude that a ban on open carry and a de facto ban on concealed carry are, together, unconstitutional.

What about the Illinois rulings? Wouldn't those be a precedent of some sort?

I can't find what I'm looking for with a quick search (and I'm kind of in a hurry), but wasn't Illinois' complete ban on civilian carry ruled unconstitutional?

Wasn't there a court order that the state pass some sort of carry permit law, or "go constitutional carry" with no restrictions?

And, of course, despite being given a year to do this, the state dragged its feet and had to ask the court for extra time.

Working entirely off memory here and I'm probably missing something or getting something wrong. Any correction to this would be welcome.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[champu 1]

You're thinking of Moore v. Madigan which was a seventh circuit decision. Other important related cases are Kachalsky v. Cacace (2nd circuit; appealed to SCOTUS; cert denied) and Woollard_v._Gallagher (fourth circuit; currently in a similar state as Peruta)

The goal of the ninth circuit en banc panel will be to issue a ruling that changes nothing about how permitting currently works (an effective ban at the discretion of each County's Sheriff) but that has some inoperative difference from Moore built into it so to leave SCOTUS an out to be able to deny cert.