You just knew that the gun prohibitionists would not take the win in the Peruta decision lying down especially since San Diego Sheriff Bill Gore decided to accept the decision.
Today, in what seems to be a coordinated effort, California Attorney General Kamala Harris, the Brady Campaign, the Legal Community Against Violence, the California Peace Officers Association, and the California Police Chiefs Association filed petitions requesting an en banc hearing. The State of California represented by Harris and the Brady Campaign also filed motions to intervene in the case.
In an article by Emily Miller this evening, Chuck Michel questioned whether any of these parties have standing.
02/27/2014 121 Filed (ECF) Amici Curiae California Peace Officers Association and California Police Chiefs Association petition for rehearing en banc (from 02/13/2014 opinion). Date of service: 02/27/2014. [8996109]--[COURT UPDATE: Attached searchable version of petition. Resent NDA. 02/27/2014 by RY] (PRC) 02/27/2014 122 Submitted (ECF) Intervenor brief for review and filed Motion to intervene. Submitted by State of California. Date of service: 02/27/2014. [8996638] (GDB) 02/27/2014 123 Submitted (ECF) Intervenor brief for review and filed Motion to intervene. Submitted by Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Date of service: 02/27/2014. [8996736] (NRO) 02/27/2014 124 Filed (ECF) Amicus Curiae Legal Community Against Violence petition for rehearing en banc (from 02/13/2014 opinion). Date of service: 02/27/2014. [8996737] (SJF)
Chuck Michel, the west coast counsel for the National Rifle Association, said Ms. Harris‘ motion to intervene was far out of line because her office wasn’t part of the lawsuit.
“They are trying to improperly influence the court,” Mr. Michel said in an interview. “The are stretching the rules to file in order to get their arguments in front of the court in the hopes that a liberal judge will get the message and ask for a vote himself.”...
“Obviously, what this tells us is the folks that advocate civilian disarmament are upset about the opinion and want to throw everything they can at it to bottle up the 9th Circuit or get it overturned,” said Mr. Michel, whose firm, Michel and Associates, represented the plaintiffs in the Peruta case up to the appeals court level.
UPDATE: As to why Kamala Harris et al are trying to get the Peruta decision reviewed and overturned, I think this story from Fox News pretty much gives the reason.
Gun owners are flooding the sheriff's offices in two California counties with applications for concealed weapon permits following a bombshell ruling two weeks ago by a federal appeals court that citizens need not justify their requests.Once the proles get their permits to carry you just can't keep them down anymore.
Orange and Ventura counties have dropped the "good cause" standard for issuing conceal carry permits after the requirement was struck down Feb. 13 by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeal. A three-judge panel of the court ruled 2 to 1 that the Second Amendment bars California counties from requiring law-abiding gun owners who want to carry concealed firearms to demonstrate special, individualized needs for protection.
More than 500 applications have poured in to the Orange County Sheriff’s Department in just two weeks — roughly the total number of applications filed in 2013, a spokesman said. Orange County Sheriff Sandra Hutchens announced on the department's website that the county will comply with the federal court's order immediately, sparking the wave of applications.
Yep, they ARE abusing the system... And good for Ms. Miller for calling them out on the national stage!
ReplyDelete"Chuck Michel, the west coast counsel for the National Rifle Association, said Ms. Harris‘ motion to intervene was far out of line because her office wasn't part of the lawsuit."
ReplyDeleteIsn't that what NRA did in the Heller or McDonald case?
Heller, and yes.
DeleteThat was my first question when I heard CA AG Harris was filing for an en banc appeal. "Does she or her office have standing to make the request?" Apparently not, but a lack of standing has never stopped a committed anti-gunner from peddling their snake oil before. Why should we expect it to now?
ReplyDeleteAs to the NRA and Heller, IIRC they did not actively engage in the case, and in fact initially opposed its being heard at all. Eventually, they filed an amicus brief supporting Heller, but that was the extent of their support. Except for the amicus brief - which can be filed by any outside party - they were not directly involved in Heller. In McDonald, however, they were plaintiffs along with Mr. McDonald, and had standing for the duration.
We should find out today whether or not there will be an en banc review, right?
ReplyDeleteMichel said it's possible that more liberal 9th Circuit judges would have sought to review the case without a county or state request. Either way, the call for a vote on whether to review the case must happen by Friday, March 7, he said.
Anti's lost. Mr. Peruta just posted on the denial of en Banc on Calguns.net. We win!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteWhoa! That's big news!
Delete