• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Peruta and Richards decisions vacated - en banc petitions granted

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
It should not surprise anyone to hear that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has vacated the Peruta v. San Diego and Richards v. Prieto appellate decisions. The en banc petitions were granted and the case will be reheard before an 11 judge panel the week of June 15th.

I will shortly be filing a petition to have the appeal of my Open Carry case (Nichols v. Brown) be initially heard en banc and hopefully, heard before the same en banc panel. The latter part might be a bit tricky as I did not expect for the oral arguments to be scheduled so soon after granting the en banc petitions.


03/26/2015 193 Filed Order for PUBLICATION (SIDNEY R. THOMAS) 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.[9473535] (RP) [Entered: 03/26/2015 12:53 PM]
03/26/2015 194 Filed order (SIDNEY R. THOMAS) En banc oral argument will take place during the week of June 15, 2015, in San Francisco, California. The date and time will be determined by separate order. For further information or special requests regarding scheduling, please contact Deputy Clerk Paul Keller at paul_keller@ca9.uscourts.gov or (415) 355-8026. Within seven days from the date of this order, the parties shall forward to the Clerk of Court twenty-five additional paper copies of the original briefs (including supplemental and amicus briefs) and excerpts of record. The paper copies must be accompanied by certification (attached to the end of each copy of the brief) that the brief is identical to the version submitted electronically. A sample certificate is available at http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/cmecf/Certificate-for- Brief-in-Paper-Format.pdf. The paper copies shall be printed from the PDF version of the brief created from the word processing application, not from PACER or Appellate ECF. [9473833] (SM) [Entered: 03/26/2015 02:42 PM]

For more information on Peruta v. San Diego click here.
For more information on Richards v. Prieto click here.
For more information on Nichols v. Brown click here.

NRA Suckers.jpg

[video]https://youtu.be/UaxxuyBvB-M[/video]
 

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
Richards v. Prieto consolidated with Peruta

Edit: April 6 - We now know how much time each side will have - 30 minutes. The NRA & SAF will be getting 15 minutes each.

Today, April 1, 2015, both Richards v. Prieto and Peruta v. San Diego have been consolidated for the en banc oral arguments which means that the time (30 minutes per side) will now be split between Alan Gura and whomever the NRA picks to participate in oral arguments.
 
Last edited:

press1280

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
399
Location
Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
Today, April 1, 2015, both Richards v. Prieto and Peruta v. San Diego have been consolidated for the en banc oral arguments which means that the time (10-20 minutes per side) will now be split between Alan Gura and whomever the NRA picks to participate in oral arguments. I don't think there is anything preventing the en banc court from limiting each side to ten minutes but I suspect that each side will get twenty minutes giving Gura ten minutes and the NRA lawyer ten minutes.

Paul Clement would be my guess for the NRA.
 

FattyKrack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2013
Messages
86
Location
Bainbridge Island, Wa
Mine as well but given the shortened argument time allowed, the nature of the case, and the $1,100 and hour Clement charges, I won't be surprised to see some other attorney make an appearance for Peruta.
One would hope a case like this would require less money to the lawyers for the cause. But then again less money for lawyers is a bit oxy moronic :)
 

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
One would hope a case like this would require less money to the lawyers for the cause. But then again less money for lawyers is a bit oxy moronic :)

Lawyers are professional liars. To paraphrase Chief Justice Roberts during his confirmation hearings in response to a same-sex marriage question he said that he is a lawyer. He went on to say that his position depends upon the position of the first person who walks in his door and writes him a sufficiently large cheque.

If I were Clements I would look at it this way. If someone else argues before the en banc court and loses, and loss is pretty much inevitable, then he can say that it was because he did not argue the case while pointing out that he won the case when he argued it before the three judge panel.

Of course were the NRA to write him a sufficiently large cheque persuasive enough for him to argue the case before the en banc panel and he loses, Clements can always say the loss was inevitable and point to any favorable dissent and attribute them to his efforts.
 
Top