1. 2aHawaii
  2. General Topics
  3. Legal and Activism
  4. Confusion? CPOA/CPA request rehearing En Banc in Peruta
Print
Pages: [1] 2

Confusion? CPOA/CPA request rehearing En Banc in Peruta (Read 15579 times)

2aHawaii

  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3629
  • Total likes: 67
  • Sheepdog
  • Referrals: 17
    • View Profile
    • 2aHawaii
Confusion? CPOA/CPA request rehearing En Banc in Peruta
« on: February 27, 2014, 02:52:38 PM »
Apparently there is some confusion as what I'm reading says these organizations (amici curiae) don't have the power to request a rehearing en banc.


Still waiting to hear on Baker v. Kealoha


PDF below:
http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/Peruta/Peruta-121-1-Amicus-Petition-2014-02-27.pdf
« Last Edit: February 27, 2014, 03:03:43 PM by 2aHawaii »
Logged
I am not a lawyer.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." - United States Constitution Amendment 2 & Hawaii State Constitution Article 1 Section 17

Buying from Amazon? Click through here

2aHawaii

  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3629
  • Total likes: 67
  • Sheepdog
  • Referrals: 17
    • View Profile
    • 2aHawaii
Re: Confusion? CPOA/CPA request rehearing En Banc in Peruta
« Reply #1 on: February 27, 2014, 03:06:13 PM »
Logged
I am not a lawyer.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." - United States Constitution Amendment 2 & Hawaii State Constitution Article 1 Section 17

Buying from Amazon? Click through here

punaperson

Re: Confusion? CPOA/CPA request rehearing En Banc in Peruta
« Reply #2 on: February 27, 2014, 09:04:47 PM »
From:
NO LAWYERS - ONLY GUNS AND MONEY
"SEND LAWYERS, GUNS AND MONEY. THE SHIT HAS HIT THE FAN." - WARREN ZEVON

[with live links to the documents] http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2014/02/antis-seek-en-banc-review-of-peruta.html

Anti's Seek En Banc Review Of Peruta Decision

You just knew that the gun prohibitionists would not take the win in the Peruta decision lying down especially since San Diego Sheriff Bill Gore decided to accept the decision.

Today, in what seems to be a coordinated effort, California Attorney General Kamala Harris, the Brady Campaign, the Legal Community Against Violence, the California Peace Officers Association, and the California Police Chiefs Association filed petitions requesting an en banc hearing. The State of California represented by Harris and the Brady Campaign also filed motions to intervene in the case.

02/27/2014     121    Filed (ECF) Amici Curiae California Peace Officers Association and California Police Chiefs Association petition for rehearing en banc (from 02/13/2014 opinion). Date of service: 02/27/2014. [8996109]--[COURT UPDATE: Attached searchable version of petition. Resent NDA. 02/27/2014 by RY] (PRC)
02/27/2014     122    Submitted (ECF) Intervenor brief for review and filed Motion to intervene. Submitted by State of California. Date of service: 02/27/2014. [8996638] (GDB)
02/27/2014     123    Submitted (ECF) Intervenor brief for review and filed Motion to intervene. Submitted by Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Date of service: 02/27/2014. [8996736] (NRO)
02/27/2014     124    Filed (ECF) Amicus Curiae Legal Community Against Violence petition for rehearing en banc (from 02/13/2014 opinion). Date of service: 02/27/2014. [8996737] (SJF)

In an article by Emily Miller this evening, Chuck Michel questioned whether any of these parties have standing.
Chuck Michel, the west coast counsel for the National Rifle Association, said Ms. Harris‘ motion to intervene was far out of line because her office wasn’t part of the lawsuit.

“They are trying to improperly influence the court,” Mr. Michel said in an interview. “The are stretching the rules to file in order to get their arguments in front of the court in the hopes that a liberal judge will get the message and ask for a vote himself.”...

“Obviously, what this tells us is the folks that advocate civilian disarmament are upset about the opinion and want to throw everything they can at it to bottle up the 9th Circuit or get it overturned,” said Mr. Michel, whose firm, Michel and Associates, represented the plaintiffs in the Peruta case up to the appeals court level.
Logged

Hawaii Volcano Squad

Re: Confusion? CPOA/CPA request rehearing En Banc in Peruta
« Reply #3 on: February 28, 2014, 03:19:06 AM »
Lawyers kill Constitution, Film @ 11   :tinfoil:


Logged

2aHawaii

  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3629
  • Total likes: 67
  • Sheepdog
  • Referrals: 17
    • View Profile
    • 2aHawaii
Re: Confusion? CPOA/CPA request rehearing En Banc in Peruta
« Reply #4 on: February 28, 2014, 09:37:07 AM »
Now I'm hearing that every appeal is inconsistent with normal court proceedings.

I've also heard comments that the Baker decision won't be released until after Peruta (and Richards) is settled.
Logged
I am not a lawyer.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." - United States Constitution Amendment 2 & Hawaii State Constitution Article 1 Section 17

Buying from Amazon? Click through here

Funtimes

Re: Confusion? CPOA/CPA request rehearing En Banc in Peruta
« Reply #5 on: February 28, 2014, 09:49:11 AM »
Quote from: 2aHawaii on February 28, 2014, 09:37:07 AM
Now I'm hearing that every appeal is inconsistent with normal court proceedings.  I've heard this.  A Hawaii case called Day appears to be controlling on this.  But, it doesn't matter... either they take it up or they don't.

I've also heard comments that the Baker decision won't be released until after Peruta (and Richards) is settled. I don't really know about 'settled' but our opinion would come after both cases are released.  That's how they write the opinions in order of which they are argued.
Logged
Check out the Hawaii Defense Foundation.
HDF on Facebook
Defender of the Accused in Arkansas Courts
Posts are not legal advice & are my own, unless said so.

Hawaii Volcano Squad

Re: Confusion? CPOA/CPA request rehearing En Banc in Peruta
« Reply #6 on: February 28, 2014, 09:58:31 AM »
Whether or not the Calif. AG En Banc request is technically within the law may be totally irrelevant. Any judge on the 9th circuit can start an En Banc review with NO PAPERWORK at all.

The key therefore is: if there is a judge on the 9th circuit who wants to review the Peruta case, it will be reviewed. If not, it will not be reviewed.

 :popcorn:
Logged

Funtimes

Re: Confusion? CPOA/CPA request rehearing En Banc in Peruta
« Reply #7 on: February 28, 2014, 10:22:46 AM »
Quote from: Hawaii Volcano Squad on February 28, 2014, 09:58:31 AM
Whether or not the Calif. AG En Banc request is technically within the law may be totally irrelevant. Any judge on the 9th circuit can start an En Banc review with NO PAPERWORK at all.

The key therefore is: if there is a judge on the 9th circuit who wants to review the Peruta case, it will be reviewed. If not, it will not be reviewed.

 :popcorn:

Well, to clarify for those viewing, any judge can request a vote.  You need to have a winning vote to take the case up by the larger panel.
Logged
Check out the Hawaii Defense Foundation.
HDF on Facebook
Defender of the Accused in Arkansas Courts
Posts are not legal advice & are my own, unless said so.

Hawaii Volcano Squad

Re: Confusion? CPOA/CPA request rehearing En Banc in Peruta
« Reply #8 on: February 28, 2014, 10:51:56 AM »
Quote from: Funtimes on February 28, 2014, 10:22:46 AM
Well, to clarify for those viewing, any judge can request a vote.  You need to have a winning vote to take the case up by the larger panel.

That may be a distinction without a difference. If a sitting judge wants to review a case I have a hard time imagining his brethren refusing it, but it theoretically could happen.

BOTTOM LINE: Sweat it out! March 7th is the deadline for a judge to request an En Banc review.

Meanwhile I will be using a my tin foil hat attempting to divine the future and transmit the 2nd amendment via psychic waves>  :tinfoil:
Logged

Funtimes

Re: Confusion? CPOA/CPA request rehearing En Banc in Peruta
« Reply #9 on: February 28, 2014, 11:12:42 AM »
Quote from: Hawaii Volcano Squad on February 28, 2014, 10:51:56 AM
That may be a distinction without a difference. If a sitting judge wants to review a case I have a hard time imagining his brethren refusing it, but it theoretically could happen.

BOTTOM LINE: Sweat it out! March 7th is the deadline for a judge to request an En Banc review.

Meanwhile I will be using a my tin foil hat attempting to divine the future and transmit the 2nd amendment via psychic waves>  :tinfoil:

It happens often. People request it all the time.  You will know when people really wanted it if there are dissents from the denial of the request.   Our date is march 6th for the court to take it up on themselves.  The deadline for filing the request has since past.
Logged
Check out the Hawaii Defense Foundation.
HDF on Facebook
Defender of the Accused in Arkansas Courts
Posts are not legal advice & are my own, unless said so.

punaperson

Re: Confusion? CPOA/CPA request rehearing En Banc in Peruta
« Reply #10 on: February 28, 2014, 11:47:27 AM »
Quote from: Funtimes on February 28, 2014, 11:12:42 AM
It happens often. People request it all the time.  You will know when people really wanted it if there are dissents from the denial of the request.   Our date is march 6th for the court to take it up on themselves.  The deadline for filing the request has since past.
Hi Chris. Wondering if you know IF a judge requests a vote on en banc, how long before that vote takes place? AND IF they do vote for en banc (I believe 14 would be a majority, as there are currently two vacancies on the 29 member circuit) how long before the case is argued en banc? Are we possibly looking at another two years or more for an en banc decision? Thanks.  :shaka:
Logged

Funtimes

Re: Confusion? CPOA/CPA request rehearing En Banc in Peruta
« Reply #11 on: February 28, 2014, 12:24:12 PM »
Quote from: punaperson on February 28, 2014, 11:47:27 AM
Hi Chris. Wondering if you know IF a judge requests a vote on en banc, how long before that vote takes place? AND IF they do vote for en banc (I believe 14 would be a majority, as there are currently two vacancies on the 29 member circuit) how long before the case is argued en banc? Are we possibly looking at another two years or more for an en banc decision? Thanks.  :shaka:

Here is an article that covers a lot of the process behind the scenes:
http://www.arizonalawreview.org/pdf/48-2/48arizlrev325.pdf

But the TLDR is: We will know when they release an order, or we will know that they didn't want to hear it on the 6th of March.  How long till argued is very questionable, they would need to do briefing and stuff.. probably looking at a year or so, then a year or so for an opinion. 
Logged
Check out the Hawaii Defense Foundation.
HDF on Facebook
Defender of the Accused in Arkansas Courts
Posts are not legal advice & are my own, unless said so.

Hawaii Volcano Squad

Re: Confusion? CPOA/CPA request rehearing En Banc in Peruta
« Reply #12 on: March 06, 2014, 01:14:55 AM »
Quote from: Funtimes on February 28, 2014, 11:12:42 AM
It happens often. People request it all the time.  You will know when people really wanted it if there are dissents from the denial of the request.   Our date is march 6th for the court to take it up on themselves.  The deadline for filing the request has since past.

This will get stretched out a few more weeks.  ::)

There was new court  filing that states the date for submitting arguments [on behalf of Peruta] addressing En Banc  review & Intervening party to SCOTUS must be filed by March 26th. Here it is>

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Peruta-v.-County-of-San-Diego_Order-re-Ordering-Response-to-Motions-to-Intervene.pdf

The issue is will there be an En Banc or will CA AG be granted status to allowed to appeal to SCOTUS. If En Banc review is not enpaneled and the AG allowed to appeal to SCOTUS there are good and bad consequences.

The good news is all the sister federal courts will have to follow the supreme court final ruling, spreading this ruling across the nation. This decision is so closely based on Heller, SCOTUS would have to overturn it's own decision.

The bad news: the Supreme Court may alter the ruling ever so slightly, turning this victory into a loss across all the jurisdictions.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2014, 01:59:01 AM by Hawaii Volcano Squad »
Logged

suka

Re: Confusion? CPOA/CPA request rehearing En Banc in Peruta
« Reply #13 on: March 06, 2014, 02:36:09 AM »
The CA AG is not a defendant and by all accounts cannot officially file an en banc. Only involved parties may file.
The Court may grant an en banc but is not required and the ruling may stand.

If Gore does not file to motion, in which means the AG and Brady cannot be involved.
however , Im sure the AG will be pressuring the sheriff  to file.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2014, 02:41:34 AM by suka »
Logged

Hawaii Volcano Squad

Re: Confusion? CPOA/CPA request rehearing En Banc in Peruta
« Reply #14 on: March 06, 2014, 07:22:28 AM »
Quote from: suka on March 06, 2014, 02:36:09 AM
The CA AG is not a defendant and by all accounts cannot officially file an en banc. Only involved parties may file.
The Court may grant an en banc but is not required and the ruling may stand.

If Gore does not file to motion, in which means the AG and Brady cannot be involved.
however , Im sure the AG will be pressuring the sheriff  to file.

The AG has filed belatedly as a Proposed Appellee Intervenor. Here is the filing the Peruta team has until March 26 to present an argument against

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2014/02/28/10-56971_motion_to_intervene.pdf

In oral argument, all the judges were snickering at the AG who did not want to get involved but made certain she was notified that she could be but she declined to during the case.

Here is the actual audio of the oral argument direct from the courtroom:



The amazing part is were James Chapin states that "A handgun and two clips is a weapon of mass destruction"
I have never seen or heard of a handgun that can load or fire a clip.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2014, 07:33:34 AM by Hawaii Volcano Squad »
Logged

MisterEd

Re: Confusion? CPOA/CPA request rehearing En Banc in Peruta
« Reply #15 on: March 06, 2014, 07:55:34 AM »
Quote from: Hawaii Volcano Squad on March 06, 2014, 07:22:28 AM
The AG has filed belatedly as a Proposed Appellee Intervenor. Here is the filing the Peruta team has until March 26 to present an argument against

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2014/02/28/10-56971_motion_to_intervene.pdf

In oral argument, all the judges were snickering at the AG who did not want to get involved but made certain she was notified that she could be but she declined to during the case.

Here is the actual audio of the oral argument direct from the courtroom:



The amazing part is were James Chapin states that "A handgun and two clips is a weapon of mass destruction"
I have never seen or heard of a handgun that can load or fire a clip.

Link didn't work for me...  tried 2 browsers....  both said 'video is unavailable...    >:(
Logged

Hawaii Volcano Squad

Re: Confusion? CPOA/CPA request rehearing En Banc in Peruta
« Reply #16 on: March 06, 2014, 08:06:02 AM »
Quote from: MisterEd on March 06, 2014, 07:55:34 AM
Link didn't work for me...  tried 2 browsers....  both said 'video is unavailable...    >:(

Youtube is taking forever to "process" the video. it is 40 minutes of argument so give it a few minutes I guess.  ::)
Logged

Hawaii Volcano Squad

Re: Confusion? CPOA/CPA request rehearing En Banc in Peruta
« Reply #17 on: March 06, 2014, 08:33:51 AM »
Looks like it is working now for me... sorry it took youtube a few minutes to process, whatever that is.

Can you view the video now?   :shaka:

It was pointed out that there was a stripper clip loaded handgun. You can search youtube for video to see one.

"The Mauser C96 (Construktion 96) is a semi-automatic pistol that was originally produced by German arms manufacturer Mauser from 1896 to 1937."
« Last Edit: March 06, 2014, 09:43:38 AM by Hawaii Volcano Squad »
Logged

punaperson

Re: Confusion? CPOA/CPA request rehearing En Banc in Peruta
« Reply #18 on: March 10, 2014, 08:29:24 AM »
http://www.nranews.com/cam/video/ken-klukowski-after-peruta-where-we-go-from-here/list/sportsman-channel-videos

NRA News on Sportsman Channel six minute video (March 7) with Ken Klukowski, the senior legal analyst at Breitbart News, on Peruta decision whether or not to grant intervenor status to California Attorney General Kamala Harris. He states that the decision "could take months" and mentions possible "private" intra-court conflicts that can lead to long drawn out decision-making. He also stresses the importance of the upcoming elections as every federal judiciary nominee made by Obama needs to be ratified by the Senate, where it might be possible to overcome the Democratic majority this November. Not that Hawaii would elect a non-Democrat to the Senate, but we could make some effort anyway. Quite a few of these decisions are by one judge (Peruta 2-1, Heller 5-4, McDonald 5-4, etc.) so having the ability to approve or reject these appointments could be important in the future.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2014, 08:56:01 AM by punaperson »
Logged

Hawaii Volcano Squad

Re: Confusion? CPOA/CPA request rehearing En Banc in Peruta
« Reply #19 on: March 10, 2014, 11:51:25 AM »
Good Post Punaperson!
The paperwork the court asked for from the Peruta side rebutting the CA AG's Intervenor states as well as the Brady Gun Violence filing is due on March 26th. I read the filings, and the Brady filing is extensive, the CA AG less so.
If I was the Peruta team I would ask for an extension to respond to each point made and leave to go past the 6,000 word limit on account of there being so many issues raised. It is like the Brady people threw the kitchen sink in the thing.

IN THE MEANTIME, Peruta is the law of the land and until overturned or at least stayed pending an appeal, it seems to me that NOW is the time to demand CCW "good cause" requirement to be eliminated to conform with the 9th Circuit court ruling. If the AG and Police chief decline, file for a "writ of mandamus" to force the issue and pray they choose to actually follow the law as it is now, not as they would like it to be.  :popcorn:
Logged
Print
Pages: [1] 2
« previous next »