Peruta En Banc Oral Arguments To Be Heard in San Francisco 16 June, 2015

By Dean WeingartenNinth Circuit Court of Appeals

Dean Weingarten
Dean Weingarten

Arizona – -( Oral arguments will be heard before the En Banc panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday, 16 June, 2015.   The hearing will take place at 3:30 p.m. in Courtroom One at the James R. Browning Courthouse, 95 Seventh Street in San Francisco.  I have not seen what judges have been selected for the En Banc panel.  According to Ninth Circuit procedure, there will be 11 members.  I am sure that the oral arguments will be well covered.

The crux of Peruta is whether the right the keep and bear arms extends outside of the home.   The three judge panel argued, I believe extremely persuasively, that it does.    The dissenting judge, Sidney R. Thomas, argued that a nebulous state interest of “safety” overrode the second amendment, because, well, because the Supreme court had not addressed the issue of carrying outside of the home specifically in Heller.    The opinion and dissent are available in pdf format here.

Sidney R. Thomas has now become the Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit.  He is reportedly one of the most “liberal” judges in the Ninth Circuit.

Amicus briefs have been filed by numerous parties.   All of the amicus Briefs are available in pdf format here.   The parties that have filed amicus briefs are:

04/30/2015 Amicus Brief by Everytown for Gun Safety
04/30/2015 Amicus Brief by New York State Rifle Ass'n
04/30/2015 Amicus Brief by International Law Enforcement Educators Ass'n
04/30/2015 Amicus Brief by Western States Sheriffs' Ass'n
04/30/2015 Amicus Brief by State of California
04/30/2015 Amicus Brief by National Rifle Ass'n
04/30/2015 Amicus Brief by Gun Owners of America, et al
04/30/2015 Amicus Brief by The Madison Society
04/30/2015 Amicus Brief by State of Alabama, et al
04/30/2015 Amicus Brief by Congress of Racial Equality
04/30/2015 Amicus Brief by Governor of Texas, et al
04/29/2015 Amicus Brief by League of California Cities
04/28/2015 Amicus Brief by Pink Pistols, et al
04/16/2015 Amicus Brief by State of Hawaii
04/16/2015 Amicus Brief by Charles Nichols

It is not clear that the State of California will be a party in the proceedings.  Kamala Harris, the AG, has asked to become a party.  Early in the case she argued that state law was not affected, so the state should *not* be a party.  She has asked the court to be able to participate in the oral arguments.

That request has not been ruled on, to my knowledge.   It is a critical point if the State of California is a party or not.   If they become a party, then they can appeal an adverse ruling;  if they are not a party, they have no standing to appeal.

Sheriff Gore has stated that he would not appeal the ruling of the 3 judge panel.   He gets another bite of the apple with a new ruling by the En Banc panel, and could decide to appeal it, if it is adverse.  There would be tremendous pressure on him to do so, but the appeal is not as certain as it would be if the State of California becomes one of the parties to the case.

If the En Banc panel reverses the three judge panel's opinion, then the case would certainly be appealed by the plaintiffs.

Whether the Supreme Court would accept an appeal is completely uncertain.


Charles Nichols reports that the oral arguments will be available live streaming on YouTube video at the Ninth Circuit website.

 Link to Ninth Circuit page, audio and video links on the left

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.

Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
3 Comment threads
3 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
6 Comment authors
SparafucileJohn FreemanLarry WeeksVanns40Leonard Recent comment authors
Notify of
Larry Weeks
Larry Weeks

My son and I joined the NRA 3 years ago because of Obama’s civilian disarmament agenda. The NRA/ILA was formed to give us a voice against Bloomberg’s millions. If gun control measures went away, we’d all be safer. Don’t blow this comment off without realizing that Obama doubled the NRA membership and increased the number of privately owned firearms by 40%. Good job MR Prez.


If the NRA was truly a gun rights organization they would have included Charles’ brief. However, they are for restricting the right to bear arms, and for more regulations. They have silenced opposition in the past and continue to do so.


NRA/ILA is a money making machine and by its very nature benefits by maintaining the status quo. If gun control measures/laws were totally eliminated the ILA would quickly whither and die for lack of interest.


Charles’s brief, and virtually everything Charles says, is harmful to the pursuit of Second Amendment rights in California. He misreads the Heller decision (willfully, it seems, since he’s been corrected numerous times), and presents a case that has no connection to modern law or precedent.

Charles Nichols
Charles Nichols

Thanks Dean Weingarten for including my Amicus brief in your list and for the tip of the hat. The National Rifle Association and its official state organization the California Rifle and Pistol Association have also sent out emails and published lists of the Amicus briefs. Although my Amicus brief was the first to be filed in the en banc proceedings and my Amicus brief is the ONLY Amicus brief which argued in defense of the Second Amendment Open Carry right, the NRA and CRPA left my Amicus brief off of their lists. Concealed carry is of no use to me,… Read more »

John Freeman
John Freeman

Charles; While the court decisions you have listed are well and good, the Heller case references given are narrowly tailored by scotus so as to support their decision in the case. Paraphrasing can allow for a tremendous amount of misleading conclusions and that is exactly what scotus has done. There are numerous past decisions along with founders era writings the could and should have been consulted in their deliberations. Had they done so with brutal honesty, their moral obligations would have left them with no recourse but to overturn all prohibitive arms laws in every state and federal jurisdiction. What… Read more »