San Diego, CA –-(Ammoland.com)- Just this afternoon, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued the following order in the case of Peruta v. San Diego County:
Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35(a) and Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion and order denying motions to intervene shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.
This means, essentially, that the landmark opinion rendered in the Peruta case over a year ago— that found there is a right to carry under the Second Amendment which forbids sheriffs from requiring law-abiding adults to prove they have a special need for a carry license—is no longer valid, and an “en banc” panel of eleven judges will decide whether to uphold the panel’s decision, which would be a huge victory for the Second Amendment, or overturn it, putting California back to where it was before.
A more detailed explanation of what this may mean will be forthcoming shortly. For those who have been following this case, there is no indication yet whether the Attorney General’s petition to intervene in the matter will be considered. Also noteworthy is the related case of Richards v. Prieto will also be reheard en banc. Stay tuned further news and developments on this very important case.
About:
CalGunLaws.com is an online research resource designed primarily for use by attorneys and interested firearm owners. CalGunLaws.com strives to provide easy access to and facilitate understanding of the multitude of complex federal, state, and local firearm laws and ordinances, administrative and executive regulations, case law, and past and current litigation that defines the California firearms regulatory scheme in theory and practice. CalGunLaws.com is designed and organized to make it easy to research the law and to locate source materials and related information. All of the articles are cross referenced. Note the two sections on the right: Related Items and Related Law. Related Items will take you to any article related to the one you are currently viewing. Related law takes you to the related law and statutes for the item you are looking at.
UN Arms control Treaty vs 2nd Amendment .
PS,Texas is finally going to get open carry back !!! Its only been 145 years ! Being a Texas CHL license holder since it became law in ’95,it will be great to have the option to conceal or display !
The liberal, gungrabbing,pissant losers, know exactly what the 2A means ! They have a problem with what it says !
Charles? Just WHERE did you get all of THAT buearucritic hyperbole? You smoking crack?
When it comes to firearms law the ‘gun banners’ will always find a way to get a law they don’t like in front of another judicial panel to effect ‘Hope and Change’!
An anonymous member of the 9th Circuit demanded a wider, repeated hearing of the Peruta case. Seems like a typical liberal reaction to loosing a case: demand that it be done again, until the libs get what they want.
Also from the 2008 Supreme Court in DC v Heller, made applicable to the States in 2010 by McDonald v. City of Chicago: At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in… Read more »
Charles. Conceivably a state is free to decide whether they choose to ban open or concealed carry, or limit one to those permitted. However, the state must allow one form. Whether they require a person to get a permit is another debate. But the default is that one form be available to everyone so long as they are a not prohibited person. I would note that it would be odd if people were required to get a permit to exercise free speech.
Charles, The Constitution trumps court orders and rulings. Because a court demands and declares bearing arms illegal does not make that ruling Constitutional. I can read. The Constitution is clear.
Thanks for such an informative article that also told us WHY the case was being reheard, instead of just assuming that we knew why. Why didn’t you just assume that we knew it was being reheard and not write the article at all?