Another amicus brief filed on the 24th and just listed on the Michel and Associates website (http://michellawyers.com/guncasetracker/perutavsandiego/). They seem to be on top of the filings, whereas the actual Ninth Circuit site dedicated to the Peruta case (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000722) sometimes takes many days to list filings, etc. None of the briefs from this week are on the Ninth Circuit site yet.

This brief is filed by Alan Gura (head litigator of Heller, McDonald, Palmer, etc.) on behalf of the individuals in the Richards v. Prieto (Yolo county case) and the Second Amendment Foundation and the Calguns Foundation. He argues that Harris does not have standing for several reasons and that the court would be better served to deny en banc to Peruta and instead take up Richards (Gura is the litigator) en banc, because unlike Peruta which only challenges Gore's discretionary application of the "good cause" law, Richards challenges the state law of "good cause" itself.

Gura definitely has a more "direct" (possibly "confrontational" or "in your face" or something) style as evidenced by his pointing out how the Ninth Circuit has already been overturned at least twice by the Supreme Court for incorrectly granting intervenor status to parties who did not meet the standards for intervenor (i.e. "Are you going to screw up again and get slapped down by SCOTUS again?"). There are other examples in there as well, and I found it interesting that that in titling the amicus brief they write:

EDWARD PERUTA, ET.AL
        Plaintiffs-Appellants,

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
         Intervenor-Pending,

          v..

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, ET AL.,
          Defendants-Appellees.

As if AG Harris will be arguing with Peruta against sheriff Gore. Of course she is asking for intervenor status because Gore has refused to litigate further. I guess that's lawyer humor, or something. 

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Peruta-v-San-Diego_Brief-of-Adam-Richards-Brett-Stewart-Second-Amendment-Foundation-and-The-Calguns-Foundation-as-Amicus-Curiae-in-Opposition-to-Rehearing-En-Banc.pdf

well win or lose in Baker at least I am making the liberals work
I've got Young and Fisher coming up right after this.  Briefing is done in Young. Hawaii files their brief in Fisher on the 12th unless they ask for another extension.

well win or lose in Baker at least I am making the liberals work
I've got Young and Fisher coming up right after this.  Briefing is done in Young. Hawaii files their brief in Fisher on the 12th unless they ask for another extension.

Please tell us more about these new ones...Young and Fisher. Are they new cases similar to Baker vs Kealoha? 

I've been following Peruta and Baker vs Kealoha as closely as I can.

Mahalo

Please tell us more about these new ones...Young and Fisher. Are they new cases similar to Baker vs Kealoha? 

I've been following Peruta and Baker vs Kealoha as closely as I can.

Mahalo

I'll let Wolfwood answer your question, but in the meantime if you are interested in reading any or all of the court documents:

http://michellawyers.com/fisher-v-kealoha/

http://michellawyers.com/young-v-hawaii/

Those links are helpful, thanks. I'll continue to monitor and look forward to more info from wolfwood.  Have a great evening

At a bare minimum Young will get us rifle carry, shotgun carry, switchblades and tasers in Hawaii.  Hawaii threw in the towel on those issues.  We may get more..  Young is a very complicated appeal. 

Fisher is an attack on Hawaii's adoption of Lautenberg.  We are filing the reply brief next week on that. With the way the Ninth Circuit is working don't hold your breath on that.

I finished briefing on Young in 2013.  I haven't gotten oral arguments yet. 

It looks like my partner wants to take the transport laws next. 

We recently overturned the resident alien prohibition on firearm ownership  and the transport laws are the next set of blatantly unconstitutional laws on the books. 

We just need to save up a little money before doing that.  Rick Holcomb and I are doing all these cases out of our pocket so we have to be frugal as to how many cases we file.

Snipped

We just need to save up a little money before doing that.  Rick Holcomb and I are doing all these cases out of our pocket so we have to be frugal as to how many cases we file.

wolfwood I know it might be somewhere on this forum I would know where to find it if it was, so I will ask can folks donate to the cause, if so how?

Snipped
wolfwood I know it might be somewhere on this forum I would know where to find it if it was, so I will ask can folks donate to the cause, if so how?

+1 

+1 

+2 

We've never actually set anything up to receive money.  That's a good idea though. I'd certainly be open to Bill Richter or HRA taking donations for us if that was something they wanted to do. Then pay us through those donation.  Its hard for a lawyer to ethically (that's a legal term not how it is typically used) take money directly from a non-client for work he is going to do for a client. Having a third party like H.R.A. would make it easier.  Its not really something that we've put a lot of thought into since I never thought there would be much interest.

Apparently the voting period to rehear Peruta by en banc has ended unless it was extended by the en banc coordinator.

Here is a link that I use that provides updates to the case, hope this helps.

http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=1575

Can someone let us know what this means in "English"

Can someone let us know what this means in "English"

Means that their voting on the hearing *should* be complete, but keep waiting.  From something someone posted, I think something was special about the 11th or some stuff - so I would give it another week or so before worrying about anything.

Can someone let us know what this means in "English"

One version: The en banc votes have been made, but there is no deadline for an announcement of the results of that vote. If the case has been voted to go en banc, there is no deadline for an announcement about whether it will be reheard via oral arguments or only by briefs. There is no deadline for the en banc conference to discuss the case or hold the oral arguments, and there is no deadline for announcing a final en banc decision. In other words, to quote the link " All we can do now is wait." I'm guessing that it's going to be a long (at least a couple more years?) wait until the end.

really love waiting damn near a decade for this to be resolved

really love waiting damn near a decade for this to be resolved

It's taking a lot longer than I thought.  It has been almost a  year since the initial opinion was released lol.  Still waiting. #tumbleweed.

It's taking a lot longer than I thought.  It has been almost a  year since the initial opinion was released lol.  Still waiting. #tumbleweed.

Hey Chris. If Harris is or isn't granted en banc review of intervenor status, or if the case is or isn't granted en banc review, I suspect that the losing party will likely appeal to the Supreme Court. So if no en banc of either request, and Peruta stands (my guess: highly unlikely), then it would be an appeal to SCOTUS and that would likely take at least a year even to get to no certiorari (in addition to however long it's going to take to find about about the en banc request decisions). If one or both issues go en banc, that's another year for sure, maybe two, and then the appeal to SCOTUS. That's why above I speculated at least two years. Even if successful through all that, and Peruta stands, then we'd have to see what kind of legal shenanigans Hawaii will come up with to delay things even further.   

Hey Chris. If Harris is or isn't granted en banc review of intervenor status, or if the case is or isn't granted en banc review, I suspect that the losing party will likely appeal to the Supreme Court. So if no en banc of either request, and Peruta stands (my guess: highly unlikely), then it would be an appeal to SCOTUS and that would likely take at least a year even to get to no certiorari (in addition to however long it's going to take to find about about the en banc request decisions). If one or both issues go en banc, that's another year for sure, maybe two, and then the appeal to SCOTUS. That's why above I speculated at least two years. Even if successful through all that, and Peruta stands, then we'd have to see what kind of legal shenanigans Hawaii will come up with to delay things even further.   

I don't think they will / can appeal their denial of intervention to a higher court. I'm not sure though. What's more likely is Richards gets picked up En Banc and/or both the cases are heard together I think.  Any way it goes, I suspect it will be about 2-3 more years.

Just saw the Peruta is being review en banc....

http://firearmspolicy.us7.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=7b69d67922f8e32ca499bb6b7&id=997c8072c7&e=e9520ab440

Chris or his legal team, what's your take?