TexasCHLforum.com

Via Arms and the Law, the 9th Circuit Court put up a web page devoted to Peruta:

Edward Peruta V. County of San Diego
10-56971

Due to the level of interest in this case, this site has been created to notify the
media and public of procedures and rules for admission to proceedings,
as well as access to case information.

Please check this website regularly for updates.

Federal Circuit Court decisions bind all the federal courts in the Circuit's jurisdiction, which for the 9th is a huge area - CA, NV, WA, ID, MT, HA, AZ, OR. Therefore, at least as I understand it, any similar federal question (i.e. does this county CCW scheme which is similar to San Diego's violate the 2A) should be addressed the same way in any federal court.

Lawyers make money demonstrating to the court why their particular case does or does not fit within the elements of the law and prior binding court decisions, but I would think this would force most if not all Cali counties to either issue CCW or allow open carry. I'm betting CCW.

David Hardy notes at this blog that the rules for en banc in the 9th call for Chief Justice Kozinski (2A friendly) to preside over it and the judges on the panel to be chosen randomly. Eighteen of the judges have been appointed by Dems, nine by Republicans. It is possible for all 27 judges to meet en banc, but I believe that has never happened since they came up with the 11 judge en banc rule.
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2014/ ... p#comments" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

jimlongley wrote:...

I remember hearing or seeing that Justice Thomas would do the selection of the en banc panel in the 9th Circuit, but I cannot find the reference and wonder if someone else could confirm or deny that for me...

I mentioned in one of my posts above. My source is Wikipedia, so take that for what it is worth. I tend that it is probably true, given it is a basic fact (i.e. he either is or is not the en banc coordinator for the 9th Circuit).

The Annoyed Man wrote:

ELB wrote:...

Turning San Francisco into San Antonio is not something any court is going to want to do lightly.[/url]
...

They obviously don't know that much about San Antonio.....

Heh. That is what I thought. People outside of Texas (and some in Texas, I'm looking at you Wendy Davis) really don't have a realistic comprehension of what the state is like.
Sometimes that turns out to be fun.

OH, THE HORROR!

A commenter suggests that the Ninth Circuit may be interested in taking the right-to-carry-guns decision en banc — i.e., reviewing the case using an 11-judge panel — because

Turning San Francisco into San Antonio is not something any court is going to want to do lightly.


From The Volokh Conspiracy blog.

I found this an interesting point in the majority opinion of Peruta (emphasis in the original):

That’s because, with Heller on the books, the Second
Amendment’s original meaning is now settled in at least two relevant respects.
First, Heller clarifies that the keeping and bearing of arms is, and has always been,
an individual right. See, e.g., 554 U.S. at 616. Second, the right is, and has always
been, oriented to the end of self-defense. See, e.g., id. Any contrary interpretation
of the right, whether propounded in 1791 or just last week, is error.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:...
Lets not get our undies in a tizzy. This was just one portion of the full appellate court. The state is already asking for the full appellate court to review. I'd proffer their herb smoking nanny state ways shine through with greater intensity at that point.

The fact that there is a decision at all is worth a mild tizzy at least. Whichever way an en banc court decides, the loser will appeal to the SCOTUS; there is already a split in the Circuit courts about bearing arms outside the home, and since it is such a big issue, with portion of the Bill of Rights that hasn't seen much SCOTUS action until recently, there should be a very good chance the SCOTUS will pick it up. If the en banc decision supports the 2A like it should, the split will be even more pronounced and liklier to generate SCOTUS review.

Pray that the Gangster-in-Chief does not get to make another SCOTUS appointment!

As for the en banc decision, I have no idea of the politics of the rest of the 9th Circuit --- over the years that court hase done some dizzy things, but Reagan and Bush made some inroads with their appointments. Per Wikipedia, Reagan appointed O'Scannlain, who wrote the decision, and GW Bush appointed Callahan, who voted with O'Scannlain. The judge who wrote the dissent, Sydney Thomas, was appointed by Clinton (and was considered by Obama for SCOTUS, but Kagan got the nod instead). The interesting tickle here is that Thomas also coordinates the en banc reviews (9th Circuit is so big it doesn't actually use all its judges in en banc review, only 11 of them). I'm not sure if he has sole power to decide which 11 judges will be on the en banc review, but I would bet that Chief Justice Kozinski has final approval. Also, on the plus side, Kozinski has praised Thomas's handling of en banc cases, so there's that.

I missed this earlier. Good news! Sales of Maalox are up in Sacramento!

More link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volo ... n-opinion/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volo ... arry-guns/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Actual decision:

Peruta v. County of San Diego (9th Cir. Feb. 13, 2014)