| WaGuns.org https://www.waguns.org/ |
|
| California AG's motion to intervene in Peruta case denied https://www.waguns.org/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=48697 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | mislabeled [ Wed Nov 12, 2014 2:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | California AG's motion to intervene in Peruta case denied |
The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals has denied motions for intervention by the CA AG as well as the Brady people. There's discussion about which avenues for appeal may still exist, but for now it sounds like California just became shall issue. I wouldn't normally link to a FOX news story but this is the link provided by Calguns, presumably until they can put up their own synopsis -- http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/12/new-court-decision-likely-ends-california-restrictions-on-conceal-carry-permits/ |
|
| Author: | jim_dandy [ Wed Nov 12, 2014 2:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: California AG's motion to intervene in Peruta case denie |
mislabeled wrote: The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals has denied motions for intervention by the CA AG as well as the Brady people. There's discussion about which avenues for appeal may still exist, but for now it sounds like California just became shall issue. I wouldn't normally link to a FOX news story but this is the link provided by Calguns, presumably until they can put up their own synopsis -- http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/12/new-court-decision-likely-ends-california-restrictions-on-conceal-carry-permits/ I'm guessing even with "shall issue", they'll try to resist like Chicago and add enormous fees, time and other bureaucratic nonsense, as well as outright denials for no reason with difficult appeals. Still going in a better direction though. |
|
| Author: | Michael_Js [ Wed Nov 12, 2014 2:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: California AG's motion to intervene in Peruta case denie |
It's far from over! It still can go en banc and back to the Supreme Court - which seems to be what the lawyers want - to put it to rest once and for all. Now, even if/when this passes, this crappy state's sheriff's still have Good Moral Character to use as their excuse to deny permits... then, we have to start all over suing for that! :( So long from over......... 
|
|
| Author: | MadPick [ Wed Nov 12, 2014 3:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: California AG's motion to intervene in Peruta case denie |
This is good progress.  Quote: Brandon Combs, executive director of the pro-Second Amendment Calguns Foundation, which represented the plaintiff in the Yolo County case.... YOLO County? Is that for real? 
|
|
| Author: | kf7mjf [ Wed Nov 12, 2014 3:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: California AG's motion to intervene in Peruta case denie |
MadPick wrote: This is good progress. Quote: Brandon Combs, executive director of the pro-Second Amendment Calguns Foundation, which represented the plaintiff in the Yolo County case.... YOLO County? Is that for real? The county seat is Swag City |
|
| Author: | Benja455 [ Wed Nov 12, 2014 4:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: California AG's motion to intervene in Peruta case denie |
MadPick wrote: This is good progress. Quote: Brandon Combs, executive director of the pro-Second Amendment Calguns Foundation, which represented the plaintiff in the Yolo County case.... YOLO County? Is that for real? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yolo_County,_California Quote: In the original act of 1850 the name was spelled "Yola." Yolo is a Native American name variously believed to be a corruption of a tribal name Yo-loy meaning "a place abounding in rushes" or of the name of the chief, Yodo, or of the village of Yodoi. I'm just excited to know that the pendulum is swinging back in CA. Gives me hope about the mess we're in. |
|
| Author: | mislabeled [ Wed Nov 12, 2014 4:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: California AG's motion to intervene in Peruta case denie |
Michael_Js wrote: It's far from over! It still can go en banc and back to the Supreme Court - which seems to be what the lawyers want - to put it to rest once and for all. Now, even if/when this passes, this crappy state's sheriff's still have Good Moral Character to use as their excuse to deny permits... then, we have to start all over suing for that! :( So long from over......... I didn't mean to imply everything was happy bunnies, I'm sure there are still other developments that could change the flavor of things. However, there is a statement made by an an individual on the Calguns forum (who says he's counsel for Baker v Kealoha -- another case that's working its way through the 9th) that seems to plainly say that Peruta will be the law of the land in 7 days. Link to his statement is here -- http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=15244891&postcount=11 Let's hope that's accurate and that those in CA can start exercising their right to carry. |
|
| Author: | Spooler41 [ Wed Nov 12, 2014 6:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: California AG's motion to intervene in Peruta case denie |
Good for all California gun owners, hoping it goes off as intended . ............................... Jack |
|
| Author: | waglocker [ Wed Nov 12, 2014 11:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: California AG's motion to intervene in Peruta case denie |
Anytime a Demorat politician is denied what it wants by a court or by judges, crap....anytime in general, its a good thing. |
|
| Author: | usagi [ Sun Jan 25, 2015 5:58 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: California AG's motion to intervene in Peruta case denie |
first california, now DC. both were believed impossible. |
|
| Author: | deadshot2 [ Sun Jan 25, 2015 7:32 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: California AG's motion to intervene in Peruta case denie |
Quote: The law would still not allow felons or the mentally ill to possess firearms Wouldn't just living in California somewhat brand one as "mentally ill"?  Then again, maybe some are just "prisoners of war". |
|
| Author: | mislabeled [ Thu Mar 26, 2015 2:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: California AG's motion to intervene in Peruta case denie |
Update: The Ninth Circuit has just ordered an en banc rehearing of the Peruta case and they've also said they will reconsider the CA AG's motion (and presumably also the Brady group's motion) to intervene. Oral arguments are currently scheduled to occur during the week of Jun 15, 2015. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 8 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|