Edward Peruta v. County of San Diego is a closely watched case in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Originally, a three judge panel ruled that Sheriff's did not have the authority to arbitrarily refuse to grant permits to most citizens who applied for them, invalidating the "good reason" excuse that Sheriffs were using.
The case is particularly important because the panel ruled that there is a Constituitonal right to carry a gun outside of the home, and that government entities may not effectively ban the carry of firearms outside of the home for self defense. At least one judge in the Ninth Circuit asked that an En Banc panel re-hear the case. The Court voted to hear it En Banc on 26 March, 2015.
Arguments have been presented; amicus briefs were submitted by the end of April. Oral arguments were heard on June 16, 2015. There has not been any updates on the Ninth Circuit web page for the case since 22 June, 2016. From Peruta website uscourts.gov:
Last updated: June 22, 2015, 2:18 pmIn the last few days, another case that went through the En Banc process has been decided.
In Wolfson v. Conconnan, the Ninth Circuit agreed to hear the case En Banc on 30 September, 2014. Oral arguments took place on 9 September, 2015.
In Peruta, the Ninth Circuit agreed to hear the case En Banc on 26 March, 2015. Oral arguments took place on 16 June, 2015.
The decision in Wolfson v. Conconnan was rendered on 27 January, 2016, or 16 months after the En Banc review was decided on. There was nearly a year between the start of the En Banc process and the presentation of oral arguments, with the final decision rendered only a bit over four months later.
In Peruta, oral arguments were presented less than three months after the En Banc process started, which seems like blazing speed compared to Wolfson. On the other hand, Wolfson had a decision rendered in 16 months; but only four months after oral arguments. It has been seven months since the oral arguments in Peruta, or 10 months total.
Each case is different. There is no predicting when a Peruta decision will be rendered by the Ninth Circuit; but the Wolfson case gives us a recent example of an En Banc ruling in the Ninth Circuit.
©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included. Link to Gun Watch
Posts
1 comment:
So how is it that the judiciary can delay cases they want to delay, yet rush ones right up to SCOTUS when it chooses to?
It has a bit to do with Citizens not controlling the grand jury process but it has far more to do with the fact that the right to a trial by jury has not been Incorporated. McDonald has caused a upheaval in jurisprudence - because the vast amount of lower case decisions we have seen all our lives do not comport with or comply with the Second Amendment being treated as a individual right that is held enforceable against state and local government.
Consider what happens to jurisprudence and the court structure itself when Incorporation of the right to trial by jury takes place!!!
Folks thought they had a right to bear arms - but until McDonald, they really didn't, they had a state permission. I know groups out there are dedicated to the permission, especially state government permission, (Ahem NRA Ahem) but Incorporation changes everything. What is good for the Second now has to be good for the First too. Got that Bible carry permit? Uh huh.
But how about that Jury Trial Permit?
Think about it, how can a "Bench Trial" itself be Constitutional??? Oh yeah, because the RIGHT to trial by jury is not a right enforceable against state and local government.
Incorporation of that right WILL do what McDonald would have if the NRA had just shut up. With no economics involved, incorporation of the privilege and immunity to trial by jury, the whole contrived concoction of even en banc comes under fire, with their delay and deny tactics being ended with a quickness.
Can you imagine the wave of anger is news organizations took to the airwaves and cable lines to teach people about Incorporation and the fact that the right to trial by jury is not a part of their rights states must relent to?
Yeah, absent that the court had to admit the right to arms must be held against all levels of government because the gun rights community itself forced the issue. Imagine if those who stand for jury trials were to organize?
Post a Comment