Ninth Circuit strikes California’s "May Issue"

[sjfcontrol]

Very interesting coming from Kalifornia... Of course the state is appealing..

I used to live in Southern CA, and believe me --- other than the weather, there's nothing appealing there!

[RoyGBiv]

Bazinga. That there was so full of awesome as to be better than butter-fried bacon.

Worth noting.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Kozinski#Biography" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Kozinski was born in Bucharest, Romania, in July 1950. In 1962, when he was 12, his parents, both Holocaust survivors, brought him to the United States. The family settled in the Los Feliz neighborhood of Los Angeles, California, where his father, Moses, ran a small grocery store. Kozinski, who had grown up as a committed communist in Bucharest, became what he described as "an instant capitalist" when he took his first trip outside of the Iron Curtain, to Vienna, Austria, where he partook of such luxuries as chewing gum and bananas.[2]

[Cedar Park Dad]

Very interesting coming from Kalifornia... Of course the state is appealing..

I used to live in Southern CA, and believe me --- other than the weather, there's nothing appealing there!

Well East LA and the inland empire had some excellent hole in the wall Mexican joints, and there's nothing like driving from Mount Baldy right to the beach.

If it weren't for the people it would be awesome.

[texanjoker]

This is going to be interesting, and hopefully helpful for all the law abiding citizens in CA that would obtain a CCW (what CA calls a CHL)

[Dragonfighter]

Jerks. Tyrants. Wouldn't want to give citizens their 2A rights back without taking it all the way now would they? Use citizens money (taxes) to pay attorneys to prevent rights from being exercised.

I can't write what I really think.

Anygunanywhere

Well, you could but ....

I see a little twinkling of sunshine poking through the clouds with this one.

[ELB]

...
Lets not get our undies in a tizzy. This was just one portion of the full appellate court. The state is already asking for the full appellate court to review. I'd proffer their herb smoking nanny state ways shine through with greater intensity at that point.

The fact that there is a decision at all is worth a mild tizzy at least. Whichever way an en banc court decides, the loser will appeal to the SCOTUS; there is already a split in the Circuit courts about bearing arms outside the home, and since it is such a big issue, with portion of the Bill of Rights that hasn't seen much SCOTUS action until recently, there should be a very good chance the SCOTUS will pick it up. If the en banc decision supports the 2A like it should, the split will be even more pronounced and liklier to generate SCOTUS review.

Pray that the Gangster-in-Chief does not get to make another SCOTUS appointment!

As for the en banc decision, I have no idea of the politics of the rest of the 9th Circuit --- over the years that court hase done some dizzy things, but Reagan and Bush made some inroads with their appointments. Per Wikipedia, Reagan appointed O'Scannlain, who wrote the decision, and GW Bush appointed Callahan, who voted with O'Scannlain. The judge who wrote the dissent, Sydney Thomas, was appointed by Clinton (and was considered by Obama for SCOTUS, but Kagan got the nod instead). The interesting tickle here is that Thomas also coordinates the en banc reviews (9th Circuit is so big it doesn't actually use all its judges in en banc review, only 11 of them). I'm not sure if he has sole power to decide which 11 judges will be on the en banc review, but I would bet that Chief Justice Kozinski has final approval. Also, on the plus side, Kozinski has praised Thomas's handling of en banc cases, so there's that.

[ELB]

I found this an interesting point in the majority opinion of Peruta (emphasis in the original):

That’s because, with Heller on the books, the Second
Amendment’s original meaning is now settled in at least two relevant respects.
First, Heller clarifies that the keeping and bearing of arms is, and has always been,
an individual right. See, e.g., 554 U.S. at 616. Second, the right is, and has always
been, oriented to the end of self-defense. See, e.g., id. Any contrary interpretation
of the right, whether propounded in 1791 or just last week, is error.

[ELB]

OH, THE HORROR!

A commenter suggests that the Ninth Circuit may be interested in taking the right-to-carry-guns decision en banc — i.e., reviewing the case using an 11-judge panel — because

Turning San Francisco into San Antonio is not something any court is going to want to do lightly.


From The Volokh Conspiracy blog.

[The Annoyed Man]

OH, THE HORROR!

A commenter suggests that the Ninth Circuit may be interested in taking the right-to-carry-guns decision en banc — i.e., reviewing the case using an 11-judge panel — because

Turning San Francisco into San Antonio is not something any court is going to want to do lightly.


From The Volokh Conspiracy blog.

They obviously don't know that much about San Antonio.....

[jimlongley]

Did any antis or libtards die from fright yet?

Anygunanywhere

The Brady bunch is close to terminal.

[Redneck_Buddha]

Did any antis or libtards die from fright yet?

Anygunanywhere

The Brady bunch is close to terminal.

And Mark Giffords is apoplectic.

[Jumping Frog]

OH, THE HORROR!

A commenter suggests that the Ninth Circuit may be interested in taking the right-to-carry-guns decision en banc — i.e., reviewing the case using an 11-judge panel — because

Turning San Francisco into San Antonio is not something any court is going to want to do lightly.


From The Volokh Conspiracy blog.

Let's hope not. A rehearing en banc requires a majority vote of all the judges in the Ninth Circuit in regular active service. It is specifically disfavored:

An en banc hearing or rehearing is not favored and ordinarily will not be ordered unless:
(1) en banc consideration is necessary to secure or maintain uniformity of the court's decisions; or
(2) the proceeding involves a question of exceptional importance.

Fed. R. App. P. 35(a).

Of course, some of the Ninth Circuit wackos will likely view this as "a question of exceptional importance".

[jimlongley]

OH, THE HORROR!

A commenter suggests that the Ninth Circuit may be interested in taking the right-to-carry-guns decision en banc — i.e., reviewing the case using an 11-judge panel — because

Turning San Francisco into San Antonio is not something any court is going to want to do lightly.


From The Volokh Conspiracy blog.

Let's hope not. A rehearing en banc requires a majority vote of all the judges in the Ninth Circuit in regular active service. It is specifically disfavored:

An en banc hearing or rehearing is not favored and ordinarily will not be ordered unless:
(1) en banc consideration is necessary to secure or maintain uniformity of the court's decisions; or
(2) the proceeding involves a question of exceptional importance.

Fed. R. App. P. 35(a).

Of course, some of the Ninth Circuit wackos will likely view this as "a question of exceptional importance".

The Brady bunch and their minions are already calling for an en banc review. In the 9th Circuit there are 29 active judges, but only 11 are seated for an en banc review. The makeup of the 11 would probably go a long way toward the ultimate decision, and there is no doubt in my mind that either way it will be appealed to SCOTUS.

I remember hearing or seeing that Justice Thomas would do the selection of the en banc panel in the 9th Circuit, but I cannot find the reference and wonder if someone else could confirm or deny that for me.

And considering the differences between the various Circuits, it looks to me as if this one might be a fine case to take to SCOTUS as they have already essentially ruled that self-defense is a right, and all this does is recognize that that right exists outside the home.

[ELB]

...

I remember hearing or seeing that Justice Thomas would do the selection of the en banc panel in the 9th Circuit, but I cannot find the reference and wonder if someone else could confirm or deny that for me...

I mentioned in one of my posts above. My source is Wikipedia, so take that for what it is worth. I tend that it is probably true, given it is a basic fact (i.e. he either is or is not the en banc coordinator for the 9th Circuit).

...

Turning San Francisco into San Antonio is not something any court is going to want to do lightly.[/url]
...

They obviously don't know that much about San Antonio.....

Heh. That is what I thought. People outside of Texas (and some in Texas, I'm looking at you Wendy Davis) really don't have a realistic comprehension of what the state is like.
Sometimes that turns out to be fun.

[ELB]

David Hardy notes at this blog that the rules for en banc in the 9th call for Chief Justice Kozinski (2A friendly) to preside over it and the judges on the panel to be chosen randomly. Eighteen of the judges have been appointed by Dems, nine by Republicans. It is possible for all 27 judges to meet en banc, but I believe that has never happened since they came up with the 11 judge en banc rule.
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2014/ ... p#comments" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;