California Right To Carry
Regular Member
It would seem that not every 9th Circuit Court of Appeals judge thinks that the Peruta decision will survive.
The NRA/CRPA filed a motion to lift the stay on the CCW case out of Orange County and to issue a memorandum opinion granting the preliminary injunction. Keep in mind that the threshold for a preliminary injunction is "likelihood of success" which is a far lower hurdle than prevailing on a motion for summary judgment or judgment on the pleadings.
Here is the Federal Docket entry:
04/23/2014 67 Filed order (HARRY PREGERSON, KIM MCLANE WARDLAW and RICHARD C. TALLMAN) Appellants’ Motion for Relief from Stay and Request for Issuance of Memorandum Opinion is DENIED. Judge Tallman would grant the motion because, in light of Peruta v. Cnty. of San Diego, 742 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2014), Plaintiffs-Appellants satisfy the factors articulated in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008), and are entitled to a preliminary injunction.
Also, in Jackson v. San Francisco which was decided six weeks after the Peruta decision, the three judge panel in that case reiterated the admonition in the Heller decision that concealed carry can be banned.
More recently, citing that same admonition, two district court judges issued orders in two separate cases denying a TRO and a Preliminary Injunction in CCW cases challenging the policies of the San Bernardino and Ventura County Sheriffs.
The same three judge panel that issued the Peruta decision has deferred consideration of the en banc petitions in two other cases Richards v. Prieto and Baker v. Kealoha.
Two other CCW cases pending in the 9th CCA have been stayed pending Peruta.
And as I'm sure I mentioned in another post, the en banc petition has been denied for US v. Chovan. Chovan was published last November. It is the case which established the framework for evaluating Second Amendment cases which the Peruta Court was bound by but chose to ignore.
Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org
"[A] right to carry arms openly: "This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations."" District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court (2008) at 2809.
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues." District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court (2008) at 2816.
The NRA/CRPA filed a motion to lift the stay on the CCW case out of Orange County and to issue a memorandum opinion granting the preliminary injunction. Keep in mind that the threshold for a preliminary injunction is "likelihood of success" which is a far lower hurdle than prevailing on a motion for summary judgment or judgment on the pleadings.
Here is the Federal Docket entry:
04/23/2014 67 Filed order (HARRY PREGERSON, KIM MCLANE WARDLAW and RICHARD C. TALLMAN) Appellants’ Motion for Relief from Stay and Request for Issuance of Memorandum Opinion is DENIED. Judge Tallman would grant the motion because, in light of Peruta v. Cnty. of San Diego, 742 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2014), Plaintiffs-Appellants satisfy the factors articulated in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008), and are entitled to a preliminary injunction.
Also, in Jackson v. San Francisco which was decided six weeks after the Peruta decision, the three judge panel in that case reiterated the admonition in the Heller decision that concealed carry can be banned.
More recently, citing that same admonition, two district court judges issued orders in two separate cases denying a TRO and a Preliminary Injunction in CCW cases challenging the policies of the San Bernardino and Ventura County Sheriffs.
The same three judge panel that issued the Peruta decision has deferred consideration of the en banc petitions in two other cases Richards v. Prieto and Baker v. Kealoha.
Two other CCW cases pending in the 9th CCA have been stayed pending Peruta.
And as I'm sure I mentioned in another post, the en banc petition has been denied for US v. Chovan. Chovan was published last November. It is the case which established the framework for evaluating Second Amendment cases which the Peruta Court was bound by but chose to ignore.
Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org
"[A] right to carry arms openly: "This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations."" District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court (2008) at 2809.
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues." District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court (2008) at 2816.