By Dean Weingarten
Arizona – -(Ammoland.com)- In the ongoing saga of Peruta v. County of San Diego, another procedural turn; a judge on the Ninth Circuit has called for a vote to determine if the Circuit will hear the case en banc. This is a call for a vote to review the original decision, not to hear the appeal of the denial of the request to intervene by Attorney General Kamala Harris of California. Here is the Order, from the pdf:
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, THOMAS, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
A judge of this Court having made a sua sponte call for a vote on whether this case should be reheard en banc, the parties shall file, within 21 days from the date of this order, simultaneous briefs setting forth their respective positions on whether this case should be reheard en banc. See G.O. 5.4(c)(3). Amici curiae wishing to file briefs regarding whether this case should be reheard en banc may also do so within 21 days from the date of this order.
It is unknown how soon the vote on whether to hear the case en banc will occur after the briefs are received.
Peruta is the case in the Ninth Circuit that agreed that the second amendment protects a right to be armed outside the home, and that the government may not ban both open and concealed carry of arms. Peruta has already had far reaching consequences, being cited in cases involving Hawaii, the District of Columbia, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Northern Mariana Islands, and sparked legislation in Guam.
c2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included. Link to Gun Watch
About Dean Weingarten;
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.
There was a story about the 9th Circuit on a “Twilight Zone” rerun.
Don’t forget, the way CA goes so does the nation. I left CA years ago because of all kinds of bad laws. If CA gets away with banning guns other states will follow. The gun org. in CA that is fighting tooth and nail to protect the 2nd Amendment and also was greatly involved Peruta v. County of San Diego, is Cal Guns, Inc. Look them up on the web and donate as much money as you can. We have to beat CA on this issue!
This, “Peruta…” issue, was addressed, with specificity, and a point of finality, with NUNN v. STATE OF GEORGIA (1846), (as quoted in Heller). “In NUNN v. STATE OF GEORGIA (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the “natural right to self-defense” and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion PERFECTLY CAPTURED THE WAY IN WHICH THE OPERATIVE CLAUSE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT FURTHERS THE PURPOSE ANNOUNCED IN THE PREFATORY CLAUSE, IN CONTINUITY WITH THE ENGLISH RIGHT…” (Washington, D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). The legal point of challenge in NUNN is… Read more »
You are mistaken in saying that “The legal point of challenge in NUNN is exactly the same as in PERUTA.” The Heller decision was quite clear that Open Carry is the right guaranteed by the Constitution and that concealed carry can be banned. The Peruta plaintiffs argued that California can ban Open Carry. The Peruta court is bound by the Heller decision and extensive jurisprudence that a court cannot substitute a fundamental right (open carry in this case) with something else (concealed carry in this case). The Peruta decision turned the Heller decision upside down which is why, according to… Read more »
Law abiding Americans should not have their right to bear arms interfered with by anyone or any branch of our government. This right was given to protect America from America and is needed more now than ever
California need to be able to carry a fire amr