In the Peruta v. County of San Diego, the Ninth Circuit Court ruled that the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department couldn’t mandate that concealed carry license applicants must prove “just cause” for exercising their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. After the ruling, the San Diego Sheriff’s office said no mas. California Attorney General Kamala Harris jumped in, claiming an interest in the case, demanding a chance to appeal. Too late, the court ruled. And now an unnamed, anti-2A judge on the Ninth Circuit has called for a vote to determine if the Circuit will hear the case en banc. Note: this is a call for a vote to review the original decision. Here’s the order . . .
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, THOMAS, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
A judge of this Court having made a sua sponte call for a vote on whether this case should be reheard en banc, the parties shall file, within 21 days from the date of this order, simultaneous briefs setting forth their respective positions on whether this case should be reheard en banc. See G.O. 5.4(c)(3). Amici curiae wishing to file briefs regarding whether this case should be reheard en banc may also do so within 21 days from the date of this order.
It is unknown how soon the vote on whether to hear the case en banc will occur after the briefs are received. Peruta has already had far reaching consequences, being cited in cases involving Hawaii, the District of Columbia, the Army Corps of Engineers and the Northern Mariana Islands. It also sparked legislation in Guam.
If the Peruta ruling stands it will motivate the Supreme Court to address the issue of gun rights outside the home. A Constitutional right can’t exist on one side of the United States and not the other (e.g., New Jersey).
©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch