PA Bill Number: HB2663
Title: Providing for older adults protective services; and making a repeal.
Description: Providing for older adults protective services; and making a repeal. ...
Last Action: Referred to AGING AND OLDER ADULT SERVICES
Last Action Date: Nov 19, 2024
Peruta En Banc Oral Arguments To Be Heard in San Francisco 16 June, 2015 :: 05/22/2015
Oral arguments will be heard before the En Banc panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday, 16 June, 2015. The hearing will take place at 3:30 p.m. in Courtroom One at the James R. Browning Courthouse, 95 Seventh Street in San Francisco.
I have not seen what judges have been selected for the En Banc panel. According to Ninth Circuit procedure, there will be 11 members. I am sure that the oral arguments will be well covered.
The crux of Peruta is whether the right the keep and bear arms extends outside of the home. The three judge panel argued, I believe extremely persuasively, that it does. The dissenting judge, Sidney R. Thomas, argued that a nebulous state interest of “safety” overrode the second amendment, because, well, because the Supreme court had not addressed the issue of carrying outside of the home specifically in Heller. The opinion and dissent are available in pdf format here.
Sidney R. Thomas has now become the Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit. He is reportedly one of the most “liberal” judges in the Ninth Circuit.
Amicus briefs have been filed by numerous parties. All of the amicus Briefs are available in pdf format here. The parties that have filed amicus briefs are:
|
04/30/2015 |
|
|
04/30/2015 |
|
|
04/30/2015 |
Amicus Brief by International Law Enforcement Educators Ass’n |
|
04/30/2015 |
|
|
04/30/2015 |
|
|
04/30/2015 |
|
|
04/30/2015 |
|
|
04/30/2015 |
|
|
04/30/2015 |
|
|
04/30/2015 |
|
|
04/30/2015 |
|
|
04/29/2015 |
|
|
04/28/2015 |
|
|
04/16/2015 |
|
|
04/16/2015 |
It is not clear that the State of California will be a party in the proceedings. Kamala Harris, the AG, has asked to become a party. Early in the case she argued that state law was not affected, so the state should *not* be a party. She has asked the court to be able to participate in the oral arguments.
That request has not been ruled on, to my knowledge. It is a critical point if the State of California is a party or not. If they become a party, then they can appeal an adverse ruling; if they are not a party, they have no standing to appeal.
Sheriff Gore has stated that he would not appeal the ruling of the 3 judge panel. He gets another bite of the apple with a new ruling by the En Banc panel, and could decide to appeal it, if it is adverse. There would be tremendous pressure on him to do so, but the appeal is not as certain as it would be if the State of California becomes one of the parties to the case.
If the En Banc panel reverses the three judge panel’s opinion, then the case would certainly be appealed by the plaintiffs.
Whether the Supreme Court would accept an appeal is completely uncertain.
Update:
Charles Nichols reports that the oral arguments will be available live streaming on YouTube video at the Ninth Circuit website.
Link to Ninth Circuit page, audio and video links on the left
c2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included. Link to Gun Watch
