Here, courtesy of Mr. Charles Nichols (courtesy of attorneys for Sheriff Gore), is the cert petition for Peruta!

http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Peruta-v.-San-Diego-Cert-Petition.pdf

It just became available a couple of minutes ago, and it's 302 pages long, so I haven't read it yet... 

Full coverage by Mr. Nichols:

http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=4712

Peruta originally filed the case on October 9, 2009.

At least 1 went to SCOTUS

Here, courtesy of Mr. Charles Nichols (courtesy of attorneys for Sheriff Gore), is the cert petition for Peruta!

http://blog.californiarighttocarry.o...t-Petition.pdf

It just became available a couple of minutes ago, and it's 302 pages long, so I haven't read it yet... 

Full coverage by Mr. Nichols:

http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=4712

Peruta originally filed the case on October 9, 2009.

the PDF link is broken.

the PDF link is broken.

I think it's fixed now:

http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Peruta-v.-San-Diego-Cert-Petition.pdf

At least 1 went to SCOTUS

Only filed, could be denied.

Only filed, could be denied.

The timing sucks balls. a few more months and it would be more in our favor.

The timing sucks balls. a few more months and it would be more in our favor.

Today was the last day to file.
Jan 12, 2017

Today was the last day to file.
Jan 12, 2017

I know, But it sucks.

I know, But it sucks.

It takes a long time to go through the Supreme Court, so hopefully there will be a better makeup of the court by then


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It takes a long time to go through the Supreme Court, so hopefully there will be a better makeup of the court by then

But cert will be granted or denied (usually) within weeks. With Scalia still on the court SCOTUS denied cert to the similar 2nd (Kachalsky), 3rd (Drake), and 4th circuit (Woollard) cases, and you only need four justices to vote to take the case for cert to be granted. Unless the current 8 justices somehow find the petition arguments uniquely compelling, no way, no how. I'm afraid our only hope is Nichols' open carry case. Though Baker and Young may get a look.

Here is Mr. Nichols' take on the Peruta cert petition:

http://newsblaze.com/business/legal/nra-tells-supreme-court-open-carry-is-perverse_72955/

NRA Tells Supreme Court Open Carry is Perverse



Excerpt:

Today we live in a world where insanity has become the mainstream and it is the rational men and women who now find themselves on the fringes of society. Not even Ayn Rand was able to predict what the world would become in her prophetic novels, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.

In 2008 the United States Supreme Court conducted its first in-depth analysis of the Second Amendment. The majority opinion, written by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, parsed the Second Amendment word by word. Justice Scalia’s historical analysis began with the 1689 English Bill of Rights and centered around what the Framers of the Second Amendment understood the right to mean when it was enacted in 1791 and what the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment understood the right to mean as it existed in 1868, the two relevant dates when conducting a Constitutional inquiry. Justice Scalia also looked to how the 19th century state courts interpreted the Second Amendment and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms under the state analogs at the time.

With one exception, not mentioned in his decision, the courts invariably held that concealed carry was not a right. A few courts had held that the right was limited to defending The People against tyrants but even those decisions held that there was no right to carry a weapon concealed in public.

None of them held that Open Carry could be banned in favor of Concealed Carry, not one.
.....
The NRA’s cert petition will be denied and not just because the en banc (eleven judge panel) Peruta decision does not conflict with any US Supreme Court decision but because the en banc Peruta decision does not conflict with any other Federal circuit court of appeals or any other state high court decision which has had a concealed carry case come before it.

It is rare that the Supreme Court grants a cert petition when there is no circuit split and the only time it grants a cert petition in which there is neither a circuit split nor a conflict with its prior holdings is to overturn a prior holding of the US Supreme Court.

The cert petition was scheduled to be heard in conference today, however it was rescheduled this morning.  Presumably for the conference of March 31st. So... another week... at least. I guess if you consider the case was filed in 2009, that's not even perceptible as a "delay".

[quote author=punaperson link=topic=26157.msg230286#msg230286 date=1484407770

Excerpt:
.....
The NRA’s cert petition will be denied and not just because the en banc (eleven judge panel) Peruta decision does not conflict with any US Supreme Court decision but because the en banc Peruta decision does not conflict with any other Federal circuit court of appeals or any other state high court decision which has had a concealed carry case come before it.

It is rare that the Supreme Court grants a cert petition when there is no circuit split and the only time it grants a cert petition in which there is neither a circuit split nor a conflict with its prior holdings is to overturn a prior holding of the US Supreme Court.
[/quote]

well the circuit is split because Peruta says no in the 9th BUT Moore_v._Madigan in the 7th says yes.

well the circuit is split because Peruta says no in the 9th BUT Moore_v._Madigan in the 7th says yes.[/size]

Moore v Madigan ruled that the Illinois lack of any means to lawfully bear firearms outside the home was unconstitutional. No one in the state could even apply for a license to carry, because there was no law that would allow such a thing. In other words, there was absolutely no way to bear arms outside the home legally in Illinois. California clearly has a law that allows for the application for and granting of licenses to carry outside the home, and even grants licenses in some counties.

Peruta is merely challenging the arbitrary discretionary "good cause" requirement (similar to Hawaii's arbitrary and capricious discretionary "exceptional case" requirement which the police chiefs refuse to define) within the California law that allows for anyone to apply for a CCW license. The law exists to allow for carry (unlike Illinois prior to Moore), all that's being contested in Peruta is (was) whether or not the criteria for issuing such licenses are constitutional. Some (rural) counties in California are "shall issue", and some of the larger counties (where the vast majority of the population resides) are "no issue" or only issue to retired cops, etc. The Ninth Circuit has ruled that there is no constitutional right to concealed carry outside the home, but the state still has a law that allows for that (now "privilege" rather than right). Just because it's not a constitutional right doesn't mean they have banned it or don't allow it, they do, at least theoretically, just like Hawaii.

Thus there is no split. Both circuits agree that there must be a law allowing for the application for and possible granting of government permission slips to bear arms outside the home.

Further update, courtesy of Charles Nichols, on the statistical probability of a rescheduled conference re a cert petition resulting in it being accepted (Note: Past performance is no guarantee of future results):

"Regarding the Peruta v. California cert petition being rescheduled, 63 cert petitions have been rescheduled in the past year and only one of those cert petitions was granted."

Peruta has been rescheduled for the conference this Friday, March 31. If it is not rescheduled (again), we will know early Monday morning, April 3, if cert has been granted or denied.

Peruta has been rescheduled for the conference this Friday, March 31. If it is not rescheduled (again), we will know early Monday morning, April 3, if cert has been granted or denied.

Actually, there's been some "mystery" regarding this. The SCOTUS page that deals with scheduling has deleted, added back, and deleted again that the Peruta cert question would be heard at today's (March 31) conference, while still listing it as having been "rescheduled". Someone called the SCOTUS clerk's office on Monday and was told that the case was on the schedule for the Friday meeting. So... we don't really know for sure what's happening, but will still find out next Monday morning what did (or didn't) happen. Some people that follow such details say this is a little strange, but could be due to technical issues re the webpage listings rather than what is actually going on with scheduling the case for conference. Just another thing that makes ya wonder... 

So... the SCOTUS website Peruta page still is not updated correctly. Here is the supposedly correct information, from SCOTUSblog, an independent website tracking and commenting on SCOTUS activity:

Mar 8 2017   DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 24, 2017.
Mar 23 2017   Rescheduled.
Mar 27 2017   DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 31, 2017.
Mar 30 2017   Rescheduled.

There is no date given for when Peruta has been scheduled for conference. The next conference is April 13. Today, April 3, is listed as a holiday on the SCOTUS calendar. Often the cases scheduled for conference are announced on the Monday prior to the conference, which in this case would be Monday April 10, but as can be seen in the above scheduling, it can be announced earlier if there is no conference scheduled for several weeks.

Some day there will be an end to this case (dragging on now since 2009), but not yet...

My crystal ball (totally worthless in terms of accuracy): It's being rescheduled because cert will be denied and Thomas/Alito are writing a dissent to that denial which would be published the same day the denial of cert is announced.

Fortunately we will have a new 2a friendly SCOTUS judge on board soon if this makes it's way up there.

Fortunately we will have a new 2a friendly SCOTUS judge on board soon if this makes it's way up there.

I hope you're right. Unfortunately Gorsuch doesn't really have a record on Second Amendment issues and the Republicans failed to grill him on the issues during the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings. The Dems asked a few 2A related questions which Gorsuch answered in only the most general way, so we really have no idea where he stands on laws (or interpretations of laws) that are de facto bans or serious infringements on the right to bear arms openly or concealed outside the home, a national reciprocity law, whether the NFA restrictions are constitutional, etc., etc., etc. Maybe Gorsuch told the NRA executives something "off the record" that warranted their enthusiastic support.

If he is confirmed by the Senate this week, as the Repubs claim will happen (one way or the other), I'm not sure if he immediately becomes an active Justice... I don't see why not (but have no idea how it really works... he must have his clerks, etc. lined up by now...), in which case he'll be there for the next conference on April 13 when it's likely Peruta will be scheduled. Of course even if Gorsuch were a Scalia clone on 2A issues, none of the earlier concealed carry cases were granted cert by SCOTUS when Scalia was there... likely because even with Scalia there weren't 5 votes to clearly affirm the right to carry outside the home (see: Kennedy/Roberts).