2A Federal Court Cases being heard today in CA9

[Coded-Dude]

The Second Amendment Foundation, Calguns Foundation, and the National Rifle Association are arguing a few cases in California's 9th District today. I'll post some updates as soon as they are online. NRA is currently arguing the Peruta case. You can follow Calguns Foundation or the Second Amendment Foundation on twitter for live updates.
[h=2][/h]@2AFDN
@CalgunsFdn

 

[Coded-Dude]

California 9th District Federal Court Three Judge Panel: Callahan, O'Scainlain, & Thomas

First case heard: Peruta v. County of San Diego

Plaintiffs:
EDWARD PERUTA, MICHELLE LAXSON,
JAMES DODD, DR. LESLIE BUNCHER,
CALIFORNIA RIFLE AND PISTOL ASSOCIATION FOUNDATION

v.

Defendants:
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,
WILLIAM D. GORE
INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS
CAPACITY AS SHERIFF

AUDIO OF ARGUMENTS

---

Second case heard: Richards v. Prieto

Plaintiffs:
Adam Richards, Brett Stewart,
Second Amendment Foundation, Inc.,
and The Calguns Foundation, Inc.,

v.

Defendants:
Ed Prieto, and County of Yolo

AUDIO OF ARGUMENTS

---

Third case heard: Baker v. Kealoha et. al

Plaintiffs:
Christopher Baker

Defendants:
Louis Kealoha , State of Hawaii,
City and County of Honolulu, Honolulu Police Department,
and Neil Abercrombie

AUDIO OF THE ARGUMENTS

---

All three cases are related to carry outside the home, which is why CA9 has requested they all be heard together. However they are not yet consolidated. I'm not that familiar with the HI case, but the Richards case has the most merit and is being argued far better than Peruta(which was/is basically a copycat suit). Alan Gura, who is 2-0 at the SCOTUS level(DC v. Heller - Chicago v. McDonald) and should be able to get this one to SCOTUS level if we do not receive an adequate ruling. Hopefully this would help establish Shall Issue nation wide. However, I do not think that they are shooting for both forms of carry(open and concealed), because as long as one is available to anyone who applies, we win. Basically, let the states decide which form of carry they want to allow(but one must be available at minimum).

Banning Unloaded Open Carry(UOC) in CA was actually good for us(short term) as it really helped the Plaintiffs argument. Before, the Defendants would refer to UOC as the main reason that they have no responsibility or legal requirement to issue permits, because there was a way to carry(albeit unloaded). Now that UOC is banned there are several counties that have no method of recourse for obtaining a permit(unless of course you are a politician, celebrity, or a close friend to the Sheriff - see the map below). Now the Defendants are arguing that they should be able to continue to deny concealed permits and that the Plaintiffs should be going after the Open Carry Ban(AB144). Prieto/Yolo council were actually so bad with their arguments that a lot of it was made up rhetoric that they hoped would hold. Of course, Gura wasn't having any of it.

[Broken External Image]

None of this really pertains to OK as you guys already live in a Shall Issue state, but these cases could help cement the real meaning of the second amendment(bear arms), that it applies virtually anywhere within the US(not just in the home). I'm not sure when we will get a ruling from the panel, but I will keep this thread updated as the cases continue.

[EDIT] Updated with audio arguments. These are direct links the WMA files.

 

[okiebryan]

Thanks for keeping this updated. Although I have exactly nothing to add, I'm very interested in these cases.

 

[Coded-Dude]

Couple of Updates....

The cases mentioned above were pending an outcome of a case already being argued, which did not land in our favor. Gorski's LTC challenge in San Francisco was struck yesterday down for lack of standing(ruling), which could have really hurt the other cases(above), but today CA7 struck down Illinois's State statutes barring most from carrying.
You can read about it here: http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/NY0OCIY4.pdf
This makes the cases above possible wildcard cases in the Right to Carry movement. No word yet on when a ruling may come down from CA9, but I will keep you posted.

[EDIT] Also, for anyone interested in reading about the differences in strategy and tactics and the divide they are causing between the Second Amendment Foundation(SAF)/Calguns Foundation(CGF) and the NRA-ILA you can read the calguns drama thread here: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=653437

 

[mons meg]

Seriously, thanks....we need more of these kinds of updates from the Occupied Territories.

 

[Coded-Dude]

Alan Gura filed briefs today in DC vs Palmer (DC Carry), and is citing the recent Moore vs Madigan ruling CA7 just handed down in IL.

Its a short but worthwhile read.
http://ia600408.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.43.0.pdf

---

Alan Gura filed a supplemtal authority today in the Peruta and Richards cases...

Peruta:
http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/richards-v-prieto/28j-Richards-Moore-2012-12-13.pdf

Richards:
http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/richards-v-prieto/28j-Richards-Moore-2012-12-13.pdf

 

[Coded-Dude]

Per Al Norris at TFL

Madigan has until midnight, the 8th, to file for an en banc rehearing. The 7th circuit has 10 days to decide to rehear the case, or not.

If the case is not reheard, the clock is still ticking on any possible petition of cert to the SCOTUS.

If the case is to be reheard, the clock stops. That clock will be reset and won't start again until the decision of the en banc rehearing.

My personal opinion? Judge Posner is very, very respected within the 7th Circuit and unless there is some glaring error, I don't expect the court to grant the rehearing. That leaves Madigan with about 65 days to decide if she will file a petition for certiorari.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=451189&page=11

En Banc Petition: http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/moore/Moore-en-banc-Petition-2013-01-08.pdf

 

[Coded-Dude]

Earlier today, Alan Gura filed on behalf of individual plaintiffs and SAF this petition for cert to the US Supreme Court in the matter of Kachalsky v Cacace.

http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/kac...2013-01-08.pdf

This is asking SCOTUS to take and decide whether discretionary issuance of carry licenses is unconstitutional. It points out the circuit split with Moore in the 7th Circuit.

Interestingly, IL filed for en-banc review in Moore arguing that that case did indeed create a circuit split. [I linked to that in the previous post]

This case has time to be granted this session (which ends in late June of 2013) but, if granted, would likely be orally argued at the beginning of the 2014 session which is fall of 2013.

-Gene

This would put all the lower cases on hold. Fingers crossed that the Cert is granted this session. This case could give us national shall issue as well as national reciprocity.

edit - this thread needs more Gura.

 

[mons meg]

No kidding...this case has the potential to ANNIHILATE California's issue system. And New York, and...and...

Not to mention restore that antiquated notion of Due Process.

 

[Coded-Dude]

Another update from Al Norris(yesterday):

Today was the day that both Shepard and Moore were to respond to the circuits request, re: en banc hearing.

Earlier this afternoon, the attorney for Shepard, Charles Cooper, filed his response in opposition.

While the response is overall pretty good, Mr. Cooper has taken the liberty of undermining Alan Gura's argument in Kachalsky by claiming that there is no circuit split. sigh.

As of this post, Gura has yet to file a response for Moore. After reading Cooper's brief, I suspect Gura is rewriting.

Moore/SAF/Gura - http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/moore/Moore-SAF-Opp-enbanc-20130123.pdf
Shepard/ISRA/Cooper - http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/moore/Shepard-ISRA-Opp-enbanc-20130123.pdf

Some snippets from the Gura brief:

Miscalculating against the individual right is more likely to result in tragic acts of
mayhem, as individuals, most of whom are responsible and lawabiding,
are left unable to defend themselves.

If every constitutional case is merely an invitation to deferentially
review the reasonableness of legislative decisions, the Constitution is
pointless.