Attorneys for Sheriff Gore respond to Ninth Circuit request: 1. Gore supports intervenor status be granted for AG Harris. 2. The case is not moot because they have not changed their CCW issue policy.

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2014/05/14/10-56971%20Response%20to%20Order.pdf

Apparently there are no time limitations on how long the court may take to decide whether intervenor status will or will not be granted.

Attorneys for Sheriff Gore respond to Ninth Circuit request: 1. Gore supports intervenor status be granted for AG Harris. 2. The case is not moot because they have not changed their CCW issue policy.

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2014/05/14/10-56971%20Response%20to%20Order.pdf

Apparently there are no time limitations on how long the court may take to decide whether intervenor status will or will not be granted.

The court rarely gives itself a time limit for anything lol.  Wouldn't want to put pressure on yourself to you know do work or anything =p

The court rarely gives itself a time limit for anything lol.  Wouldn't want to put pressure on yourself to you know do work or anything =p

I'm pretty sure it takes a long time doing lots of research to be able to come up with the legal reasoning to deny a fundamental individual natural Constitutionally-protected civil right. 

Peruta, et. al., are moving rather quickly compared to some others... from an article re Palmer v. District of Columbia at http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/09/dc-gun-carry-rights-case-blocked-in-court/:

[Complaint originally filed August 6, 2009.] Judge Henry Kennedy was the first judge assigned to the case. He heard oral argument in Jan. 2010 but retired without issuing a ruling.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts intervened in July 2011 and reassigned the case to Judge Frederick Scullin of New York.

Even then, Scullin took over a year to rehear arguments. After the judge heard from both sides in Oct. 2012, he promised that he would make a decision “within a short period of time.”

While a “short period of time” can be interpreted to mean different things, a 20-month delay in issuing a district court decision is so rare that many find it suspicious.

This is the second time that Gura has asked the appeals court to intervene. After a year of waiting for Scullin to issue his ruling, the lawyer filed a writ of mandamus to the appeals court. In Dec. 2013, the court denied the request, saying that the delay was not “egregious or unreasonable.” But Scullin is still radio silent.

I'm pretty sure it takes a long time doing lots of research to be able to come up with the legal reasoning to deny a fundamental individual natural Constitutionally-protected civil right. 

Peruta, et. al., are moving rather quickly compared to some others... from an article re Palmer v. District of Columbia at http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/09/dc-gun-carry-rights-case-blocked-in-court/:

[Complaint originally filed August 6, 2009.] Judge Henry Kennedy was the first judge assigned to the case. He heard oral argument in Jan. 2010 but retired without issuing a ruling.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts intervened in July 2011 and reassigned the case to Judge Frederick Scullin of New York.

Even then, Scullin took over a year to rehear arguments. After the judge heard from both sides in Oct. 2012, he promised that he would make a decision “within a short period of time.”

While a “short period of time” can be interpreted to mean different things, a 20-month delay in issuing a district court decision is so rare that many find it suspicious.

This is the second time that Gura has asked the appeals court to intervene. After a year of waiting for Scullin to issue his ruling, the lawyer filed a writ of mandamus to the appeals court. In Dec. 2013, the court denied the request, saying that the delay was not “egregious or unreasonable.” But Scullin is still radio silent.

That case is just an abomination.  Gura has had to file documents twice to try and get a ruling.    That was one of the first cases filed in the country.  Almost every other case has been all the way up and through appeals and denied by SCOTUS. They can't even get a ruling out of the district court for heavens sake.

That case is just an abomination.  Gura has had to file documents twice to try and get a ruling.    That was one of the first cases filed in the country.  Almost every other case has been all the way up and through appeals and denied by SCOTUS. They can't even get a ruling out of the district court for heavens sake.

Speaking of abominations... Not to go too far afield on this thread... but we are discussing waiting on the courts to determine whether we will have a legal option to exercise a natural civil right (self-defense) outside our home. I'm wondering if we might have a moral case for a duty or responsibility to exercise our natural right in spite of any court decisions to the contrary. This was was certainly the strategy adopted by many in the civil rights issues regarding racial discrimination in this country, where the courts consistently ruled that slavery and/or racial discrimination was "legal".

Speaking of delays in decisions... the Dred Scott case decision by the Supreme Court of the United States (essentially declaring slavery legal and that African Americans, even if "freed" could not be citizens) in 1857, was first filed by Scott in 1846. Eleven years he and his family fought in the courts to end their slave status, only to be finally denied at the highest level. The sons of Scott's original owner purchased the family's emancipation after the SCOTUS decision, but Scott died only 18 months later.

Note that the reasons to deny citizenship were made clear by SCOTUS in the decision, because citizenship (even of "freed" slaves):

"...would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens  in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State  whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport,  and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to  go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without  molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a  white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of  speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own  citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."

The learned Supreme Court justices rendered this decision by a 7 to 1 margin.

And now we're supposed to wait who knows how long, if ever, before these political appointees tell us whether or not we can exercise a natural fundamental individual civil right? 

A post by HarryS on a CalGuns forum re Peruta (comment #220 at http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=811282&page=6) refers to a brief Wall Street Journal article on the fact that once again the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was the most reversed by SCOTUS. The article is here: http://online.wsj.com/articles/the-biggest-judicial-losers-1402615642

A couple of excerpts (the first two paragraphs):

The Supreme Court is heading to the final days of its term, and so far the biggest loser is once again the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The famously liberal appellate court has logged more reversals than any other circuit, having lost 10 of 11 cases.

For liberals who want to believe this is merely a case of conservative Justices overruling liberal rulings, look again. In its 11 cases the Ninth Circuit managed to draw a total of only 16 votes from the nine Justices. Eight of the 10 reversals were unanimous, and the decision to overturn the circuit was joined seven times by Justice Stephen Breyer, nine times by Justice Sonia Sotomayor and 10 times by Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

******

This of course leads to speculation about whether or not the Peruta decision, if overturned en banc, would likely be another case of the Ninth getting it wrong in the eyes of SCOTUS if appealed for cert and it's granted. Just a minor distraction as we continue to wait  for notification as to whether intervenor status will be granted to California A.G. Kamala Harris...

Any updates?  I'm hoping for a miracle.

Any updates?  I'm hoping for a miracle.

We're still waiting to hear what is happening in Peruta. California's AG has applied for intervenor status to appeal for an en banc hearing. So now it's up to the 9th circuit court to decide that, then decide if they will grant the en banc hearing, then finally (maybe) they'll decide if they'll grant the en banc in Baker. Still lots of waiting time.

Any updates?  I'm hoping for a miracle.

Honest truth, check back in another month or so lol.  These things are not fast =( 

Honest truth, check back in another month or so lol.  These things are not fast =( 

High level stuff is not measured in days or weeks, but instead months and years.

Breitbart senior legal analyst Ken Klukowski was on NRA News Cam and Co. today, June 30, 2014 talking about today's SCOTUS decisions, and then for the last two minutes of his interview about Peruta.

http://www.nranews.com/home/list/cam-company (Look at the June 30 program.)

My summary of his comments (Please listen to the audio to hear what he actually said!) (If you download the podcast the Peruta discussion starts at 1:50:44):

He hopes the court (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals: 9th CA) grants California AG Kamala Harris intervenor status. If the case goes against her in the 9th CA she will likely appeal it to SCOTUS and he believes SCOTUS will take the case in the next 1-2 years (and he thinks Peruta as decided by the three judge panel will be upheld there). Re the motion to intervene, (re-)hearing en banc, etc. he is "surprised we haven't heard yet" and expects news "any day now, certainly within the next few weeks." He attributes the length of time it has taken thus far to the fact that there are 29 judges in the circuit and they all have to vote on whether to accept Harris and/or the other amici asking for intervenor status, as well as the en banc question. He speculates that it's possible that the losers of whatever the decision is are writing an angry (and possibly lengthy) dissent that is taking time to finish and be ready for publication.

I hope he's correct and that we hear something in the next few weeks so this thing can get moving again, one way or another.

Another update on no Peruta action by the Ninth Circuit. This time from Chuck Michel, senior partner of Michel and Associates who are litigating Peruta, from NRA News on Sportsman Channel, July 2, 2014:

http://www.nranews.com/cam/video/chuck-michel-ninth-circuit-mum-on-peruta-v-san-diego-county/list/sportsman-channel-videos

His introductory comment:

"We really can't understand what's taking so long. It's not like there's some logical reason that's easily discernible. We just can't imagine what it is."

He does suggest that people in California apply for CCW due to some changes in postponing fee payment until after the application is approved or rejected. He makes no mention of Hawaii.

Back to  . Wake me up when something happens.

I talked to Chuck Michel a couple weeks ago.  He has no idea. I don't have any idea.

My best guess is that one judge is deeply conflicted on whether to grant the CA AG intervenor status. 

Latest update (7/22/14) from Chuck Michel re silence from the Ninth Circuit re Peruta, via phone interview on NRA News on the Sportsman Channel: http://www.nranews.com/cam/video/chuck-michel-incremental-regulation-means-a-ban-in-california/list/sportsman-channel-videos

Mostly about the newer California gun laws, but at 5:30 he makes a few statements about Peruta, that start thus when asked about any news re Peruta: "Not a peep, and we are starting to wonder what the heck is going on." So it's not just me. 

Today's (7/28/14) update, again from Breitbart senior legal analyst Ken Klukowski on NRA News (http://www.nranews.com/home/list/cam-company), mostly speaking about the Palmer decision in D.C. which overturned the official "no issue" CCW policy. He then goes on to talk about how the Palmer case relates to Peruta and what it all means, and what might explain the length of time it's taking the Ninth Circuit to rule on Kamala Harris's intervenor request. Paraphrased summary: The Ninth has likely already made their decision, but with 29 judges it's taking a long time for all the legal briefs to go back and forth amongst all the judges ("so many cooks in the kitchen") with various judges writing (and revising) opinions about the decision (including possibly lengthy dissents). He believes Harris will be granted intervenor status, and that whether or not the case is heard en banc or not, that Peruta will likely be appealed to/heard by SCOTUS before SCOTUS hears Palmer (which will be appealed to the local Circuit court from the District court ruling, which would then be appealed to SCOTUS, unless Peruta has been decided in a way that makes Palmer moot.

I.e. Some day we're gonna hear something.

Anything at this point is just pure speculation lol.

Anything at this point is just pure speculation lol.

Speaking of speculation... here's some on the SCOTUS divide on the Second Amendment and how they may have to take a case some day to clarify CCW (perhaps Peruta/Prieto/Baker will be that case?):

Here Comes the Next Big Supreme Court Gun-Rights Case

http//:www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-07-29/a-supreme-court-forecast-big-gun-rights-case-is-coming-soon?campaign_id=yhoo

Excerpt:

Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles, offered intriguing speculation on why the high court has been avoiding firearms cases. “It’s long been suspected that [Justice Anthony] Kennedy signed on to the earlier Second Amendment rulings by the court only after language was inserted allowing for reasonable restrictions on guns,” he wrote in June in an article in Slate. “But the question has lingered: How far would Kennedy allow gun control to go? That question might well have been on the minds of the other justices when they voted not to hear a Second Amendment case this year. With four justices likely in favor of broad Second Amendment rights and another four likely opposed, the scope of the right to bear arms turns on Kennedy. His views may have been sufficiently unclear that neither side wanted to take a risk of a landmark decision coming out the wrong way.”

Just wanted to post today to mark the seven month anniversary of the Peruta decision, and ask: 

If it takes at least this long (and who knows how long it will end up taking) to decide whether or not to grant intervenor status to Kamala Harris, and/or whether to re-hear, and/or whether to hear en banc... how long will it take to actually re-hear (one way or the other) and issue the next opinion? I ain't gettin' any younger.

Just wanted to post today to mark the seven month anniversary of the Peruta decision, and ask: 

If it takes at least this long (and who knows how long it will end up taking) to decide whether or not to grant intervenor status to Kamala Harris, and/or whether to re-hear, and/or whether to hear en banc... how long will it take to actually re-hear (one way or the other) and issue the next opinion? I ain't gettin' any younger.

I know some court cases take 5 to 10 years to finish.  I'm not surprised it's taking this long for this.

I know some court cases take 5 to 10 years to finish.  I'm not surprised it's taking this long for this.

Opinions take a long time to release, and then appeals, and then more opinions.  This is kind of different; we should have had answers months ago.