Late Friday, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals stayed its mandate in Peruta v. San Diego at the request of the Brady Campaign and Kamala Harris. They had requested an extension of time to file an appeal, intervenor status, and a stay of the mandate. They were given the extension of time and the stay but not the intervenor status. While they may get it later, it was not granted at this time.
From the court's order:
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence’s Motion to Extend Time for Filing a Petition for Rehearing En Banc and Stay the Issuance of the Mandate, and Proposed Intervenor State of California’s Motion to Extend Time to File a Petition for Rehearing En Banc and Stay Issuance of the Mandate, both filed with this Court on February 27, 2014, are GRANTED. Any proposed petitions for rehearing filed with this Court by February 27, 2014 will be considered timely if this Court grants the petitioners’ concurrently filed motions to intervene. This order does not extend the time for filing petitions for rehearing for any petitioner who did not move to intervene by February 27, 2014.I don't know if the plaintiffs are allowed to file an objection to the motions to intervene but would certainly expect it if allowed. There remains the question of what standing either the Brady Campaign or Kamala Harris have to intervene and to appeal. Harris, you may recall, declined to be a part of a similar case.
Submission with respect to the pending motions to intervene is deferred pending further order of the Court. Issuance of the mandate is stayed pending further order of the Court.
H/T Alphecca
Neither the AG or the Brady Bunch issue CCW permits, so neither has any status in the case. Remember, the Sheriff was a defendant because he used extra legal requirements to deny CCW applications. Other Sheriffs and Police Chiefs follow the law and issue CCWs to all who meet the legal requirements. And self-defense meets the "need" requirement. So, the law stands, but the policy of individual Sheriffs and Police Chiefs who refuse to issue CCWs under the law have policies that don't meet either legal or Constitutional muster. The AG would not be defending the law but the failure of Chiefs or Sheriffs who refuse to follow the law and issue CCWs. But the AG can't make the decision to issue or not, nor instruct a Chief or Sheriff not to issue.
ReplyDeleteI can't help but wonder it they are waiting for it to drop off the media and bloggers' radars...
ReplyDeleteI may be cynical, but
ReplyDeleteThe Brady Campaign has to do Something, Anything, to show their financial backers they are fighting the "good" fight. Even if it is not going to be successful, they "did something."
So give them more money, because their phony baloney jobs are a stake.
STINK!
ReplyDeleteThe same panel just issued thier ruling in the Richards v. Prieto case, from Yolo county in California. They reversed and remanded, stating that it was for the same reasons as Peruta.
ReplyDelete