Articles

8-14-2017 – A Declaration That Open Carry Is the Right

7-28-2017 – Transcript Released in NRA’s Fake Open Carry Lawsuit

7-24-2017 – 50th Anniversary of California’s Loaded Open Carry Ban

7-12-2017 – Can we Save Our Right to Keep and Bear Arms?

6-27-2017 – Supreme Court Decides to Wait for Another Second Amendment Case

6/15/2017 – The Evil Practice of Carrying Weapons Secretly

6/6/2017 – NRA Lawyer says Odds are Supreme Court will NOT take Concealed Carry Case

6/2/2017 – The NRA Lost Another Second Amendment Appeal Today

5/29/2017 – Lead Plaintiff in Supreme Court Concealed Carry Appeal says Courts are Corrupt

5/23/2017 – Peruta Concealed Carry Lawsuit has Waited 2,768 Days – Supreme Court says Wait Longer

5/20/2017 – Second Amendment Case Peruta vs. California May Strike-Out at Supreme Court

5/03/2017 – Did the NRA Take a Dive in its Fake Open Carry Lawsuit?

5/01/2017 – Supreme Court Again Silent on Second Amendment

04/22/2017 – Supreme Court Math and Concealed Carry in Peruta v. California

04/14/2017 – Federal Judge Upholds Nonexistent Gun Ban

04/12/2017 – Concealed Carry, Incest, Gay Marriage and the Supreme Court

04/05/2017 – Justice Neil Gorsuch and the Second Amendment

3/29/2017 – The Next Second Amendment Handgun Carry Case to Go Down in Flames

3/28/2017 – Federal Judge Tells NRA to Put Up or Shut Up in Open Carry Lawsuit

3/22/2017 – Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor Finally Recognizes the Second Amendment

3/13/2017 – Another Second Amendment Appeal Shot-Down by the 9th Circuit

3/10/2017 – US Supreme Court to Decide Concealed Carry Petition in Two Weeks

3/5/2017 – The Florida Supreme Court Just Handed The US Supreme Court a Second Amendment Case It Can’t Refuse

2/23/2017 – California Asks Supreme Court to Wait For Nichols v. Brown Open Carry Appeal

2/15/2017 – NRA Got Spanked for Valentine’s Day!

2/3/2017 – President Trump’s Supreme Court Nominee Neil Gorsuch

1/24/2017 -A Concealed Carry Case SCOTUS Can’t Refuse

1/23/2017 -President Trump’s Judicial Opportunity and Conundrum

1/13/2017 -NRA Tells Supreme Court Open Carry is Perverse

1/11/2017 – NRA Drops Supreme Court Concealed Carry Appeal

12/30/2016 – NRA Asks US Supreme Court To Hear Two Concealed Carry Lawsuits

12/10/2016 – National Concealed Carry Snake Oil Law Will Fail

11/29/2016 – What Lies Ahead for the Second Amendment?

11/10/2016 – The Second Amendment and President Trump

10/03/2016 – A Federal 9th Circuit Judge Finally Finds a Right to Bear Arms in Public

9/28/2016 – Are You Protected by the Fourth Amendment if You Carry a Firearm?

9/20/2016 – Two Concealed Carry Cases Fire Blanks in U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

9/8/2016 – Another Second Amendment Appeal Crashing and Burning in 9th Circuit

8/24/2016 – Concealed Carry Snake Oil and Kool-Aid Peddlers Leave Town for DC

8/18/2016 – The NRA Files Legal Challenge To California Open Carry Bans – But Not Really

8/17/2016 – The Battle for the Second Amendment Moves to Hawaii

8/15/2016 – There is No Right to Concealed Carry – 9th Circuit Denies Full Court Petitions

8/5/2016 – Did California Lie to 11 Federal Judges in Second Amendment Lawsuits?

7/15/2016 – God Save The US From The Second Amendment Lawyers

7/8/2016 – NRA Segregation Now, Tomorrow, and Forever Position Must Fail

7/4/2016 – Try Recalling California’s Anti-Gun Politicians Before Starting Your Revolution

6/27/2016 – NRA Head Wayne LaPierre Really, Really Hates the Second Amendment

6/24/2016 – Judges Who Uphold Bans on Concealed Carry Are Not the Same as Judges Who Look the Other Way When Police Murder People in the Street

6/15/2016 – Where is the NRA’s California Open Carry Lawsuit?

6/13/2016 – What’s Next for the Right to Carry Firearms in Public?

6/8/2016 – Florida Supreme Court Justices Voice Contempt for the Second Amendment

6/5/2016 – Florida Supreme Court to Hear Second Amendment Carry Case with National Ramifications

5/17/2016 – The Second Amendment and the Concealed Carry Problem

5/11/2016 – Federal Court of Appeals Goes Berserk During Second Amendment Gun Case Hearing

5/10/2016 – California Supreme Court Shoots Itself In Foot Over Gun Case

4/25/2016 – Second Amendment Foundation Files Another Concealed Carry Lawsuit: May Backfire

4/13/2016 – Has the NRA Come to Bury the Second Amendment or to Defend It? –

4/6/2016 – Second Amendment Must Wait A Bit Longer In 9th Circuit

3/26/2016 – Concealed Carry of Concealable Firearm in a Vehicle Now a Crime of Moral Turpitude

3/21/2016 – Supreme Court decision wasn’t about stun guns – It was about the Second Amendment decision in District of Columbia v. Heller which is bad news for concealed carry

3/7/2016 – How to Stop Anti-Gun Bills in California from Becoming Law

3/3/2016 – The California Supreme Court Case Which Could Upend the Gun-Groups Concealed Carry Lawsuits

2/24/2016 – The Second Amendment – Checkmate in Four Moves?

2/10/2016 – Why California’s Waiting Period to Purchase a Firearm Will Be Upheld

2/3/2016 – Florida House of Representatives Passes Handgun Open Carry Bill

1/27/2016 – The NRA Thinks Not Getting Caught In A Lie Is The Same Thing As Telling The Truth

12/11/2015 – Why Were the San Bernardino Shooting Victims Unarmed?

11/20/2015 – Attorney Alan Gura May Have Fumbled Another Second Amendment Case

11/20/2015 – HELP WANTED: Competent Second Amendment Lawyer – Inquire Within

11/9/2015 – The Supreme Court may have Finally Found its Next Second Amendment Case

9/2/2015 – Full Derp Battle over Concealed Carry in District of Columbia

9/1/2015 – National Rifle Association Drops Lawsuit against San Francisco

8/31/2015 – The Future of the Second Amendment in California and Hawaii

8/25/2015 – Yes, America, the Second Amendment is a Universal Right!

8/14/2015 – Will this be the Supreme Court’s Next Second Amendment Case?

7/3/2015 – The Future of Open Carry in California Looks Bright

6/16/2015 – State of California Concedes Second Amendment Extends Outside the Home

6/8/2015 – The Second Amendment is Now in the Hands of these Eleven Judges

6/8/2015 – Supreme Court Won’t Hear Second Amendment Cases Until there is a Circuit Split

5/29/2015 – NRA Opposes Open Carry – NRA Now Takes Credit for New Texas Handgun Open Carry Law

5/26/2015 – Four Years Ago Today: Is Open Carry The Right Guaranteed By The Second Amendment

5/18/2015 – Why the Second Amendment Keeps Losing in Court

5/2/2015 – Black Panther Party Invades California Capitol – 48 Years Ago Today

5/1/2015 – The NRA Rearranges Deck Chairs on the Titanic

4/22/2015 – Chief Judge of 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Grants Motion of Lone Voice Defending the Second Amendment Open Carry Right

4/11/2015 – An Open Letter to the Orange County Register’s Editorial on Concealed Carry

4/03/2015 – Another Shoe Drops on the California Concealed Carry Lawsuits

2/27/2015 – Federal Judge Says No Second Amendment Right To Own Firearms

12/6/2014 – The First Shoe Drops On California Concealed Carry Lawsuits

11/30/2014 – Open Carry Gunfight At The California Corral: Start Of Year Four

11/30/2014 – California Open Carry Gunfight Begins Its Fourth Year

11/12/2014 – California Concealed Carry Permits – The Fat Lady Still Hasn’t Sung in Peruta v. San Diego

10/17/2014 – It may be Legal to Carry a Handgun in the Nation’s Capitol by Christmas

10/3/2014 – Another California Concealed Carry Lawsuit Loses before a Federal Judge

8/18/2014 – District of Columbia asks Court for More Time to Enact New Handgun Carry Ban

8/13/2014 – California Concealed Carry Case Peruta v. San Diego – Poised to Move or Stuck in the Mud?

7/30/2014 – Federal Judge Reluctantly Stays his Ruling in DC Handgun Ban

7/28/2014 – The DC Handgun Carry Decision – Throwing Victory into the Jaws of Defeat

7/26/2014 – Ban on Carrying Firearms in Public is Unconstitutional says DC Judge

7/21/2014 – The non-repeal of D.C., Gun-Control

7/2/2014 – US Supreme Court Still Silent On Second Amendment

6/28/2014 – Federal Judge Says Minorities Barred From Bringing Civil Rights Lawsuits

6/7/2014 – The NRA Supports Open Carry Except When The NRA Opposes Open Carry

6/2/2014 – NRA Lawyer Says California Concealed Carry Decision Likely To Be Overturned

6/1/2014 – NRA leadership Comes Out Of The Closet In Its Opposition To Open Carry

Please
donate $10, $25, $50 or $100 to the legal fund to restore your
right to openly carry a loaded firearm in California.

Click
here to donate to the legal fund

(Credit
or Debit cards – Visa, Mastercard, Amex, Discover or eCheck)


GoFundMe PayPal

Please donate $10, $25, $50 or $100 to the fight to restore your right to openly carry a loaded firearm in California.

Click here to donate.

Piryx

(Credit or Debit cards – Visa, Mastercard, Amex, Discover or eCheck)

BitCoins 1AdtAJfcdBkA777fwtVhmCwSwCKGTFrgGz Press@CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

Richards v. Prieto - Concealed Carry Appeal 11-16255 - Lost

Share

Richards v. Prieto Appeal 11-16255

FULL COURT PETITION DENIED

MANDATE ISSUED ON AUGUST 24, 2016

CERT PETITION DUE WITHIN 90 DAYS OF DENIAL OF FULL COURT REHEARING

THE SAF DID NOT FILE A CERT PETITION

Now that the Mandate has issued this case is over as far as the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is concerned.  All that is left for the plaintiffs is to file a cert petition with the US Supreme Court which will be denied.




Well, both the NRA, its state organization CRPA, SAF and CalGuns.nuts filed petitions to have their cases reheard before all of the active judges of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.  This will delay the issuance of the mandate in both cases by at least one month and perhaps several more months.  The last time around, the (limited) en banc petition was granted on March 26, 2015.  Attorney General Harris filed her petition for a (limited) en banc hearing on November 26, 2014.

That was four months exactly for the decision to be made on whether or not to hear the case before a (limited) en banc panel.

Intervenor State of California in 10-56971 response to Petition for Rehearing En Banc

I like this bit at the end of the State of California’s response: “In short, the Court’s en banc decision is correct on the merits…It preserves the stability and flexibility of existing law, without prejudging any new Second Amendment challenge that might be brought in the future.”

Response to Petition for Full Court Rehearing from Sheriff Prieto

Order Requesting Response to Petitions for a Full Court Rehearing

Richards v. Prieto – Petition for a Full Court en banc rehearing

Decision En Banc – Peruta/Richards June 9, 2016




On June 9, 2016, an en banc panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that there is no right to carry a weapon concealed in public.

That decision leaves my lawsuit challenging California’s Open Carry bans as the last carry case standing here in the 9th Circuit as I am the only one who has squarely raised an Open Carry challenge.  NRA lawyer, Chuck Michel, said he is going to file an en banc petition for the limited en banc panel decision of 11 judges to be reheard before all active circuit judges of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (currently 28 judges).  

He has until the 14th day after the limited en banc panel decision was filed to either file his petition or to file a motion to extend the 14 day deadline.  The limited en banc panel decision was published on June 9th.  June 23rd is the deadline for the NRA to file its petition for an en banc panel rehearing before the full court.  For the en banc petition to be granted, the vote of at least active circuit judges is required.  Once the petition is filed, no vote is taken on granting the petition unless at least one of the active circuit court judges asks for a vote.  If one active circuit court judge calls for a vote then the petition is distributed among all of the active judges.  

I’ll leave it at that for now.  Suffice it to say that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has never granted an en banc petition which asked that the limited en banc decision be reheard by all active judges.  I have not read any reports of what the attorneys for the companion case of Richards v. Prieto intends to do.

 




I have noticed that many people are confused as to the procedural posture of this case.  The divided three judge panel in this case was vacated which means as far as the courts are concerned it does not exist and the vacated decision may not be cited in any case in this circuit.

A majority of active judges on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals voted to take this case en banc.  Given the large number of active judges in this circuit, an en banc panel consists of 11 judges. 

A very important procedural point which everyone seems to have missed is that it isn’t the vacated three judge panel decision which is being reviewed by the en banc court, it is the district court decision in Richards v. Prieto which is being reviewed.  That is why the question of remand back to the district court is brought up during the en banc oral arguments.  It is safe to say that the SAF lawyer, Alan Gura, who is the plaintiffs lawyer in this case, rejected the suggestion that his case be remanded back to the district court for further proceedings.

Everyone, including Peruta’s lawyer in the district court (Chuck Michel) thought that this case would be quickly decided but that was before the en banc oral arguments took place in which the California Solicitor General conceded during the en banc oral arguments that the Second Amendment does indeed extend beyond the curtilage of one’s home, but not to concealed carry.

That concession by the California Solicitor General made this case more complicated for the en banc court than it started out to be and no doubt explains some, but not all, of the delay in the en banc court publishing a decision.

Obviously, the death of Justice Scalia no doubt will factor into the decision and be a factor as to when the en banc decision is eventually released.


 

Both this concealed carry case and the Peruta v. San Diego concealed carry case were taken under submission for a decision on June 16, 2015.  There is no deadline on the court for issuing a decision.  A decision could come tomorrow or it could come three years from now.  The parties to the lawsuit are allowed to notify the court that no decision has been reached after nine months but that notification is, for all intents and purposes, meaningless.  

The California Solicitor General Conceded that the Second Amendment “Core Right” Extends Beyond the Home in the En Banc Oral Arguments, but not to concealed carry.

This is a huge victory for the Second Amendment in California.  Whether this concession has any effect on concealed carry remains to be seen as ALL of the parties say that there is no right to carry a weapon concealed in public and if there is no right to concealed carry then it does not matter what restrictions are placed on Open Carry.  If there is no concealed carry right then there is no concealed carry right.  End of story.

The Peruta v. San Diego en banc panel consists of THOMAS , Chief Judge; and PREGERSON, SILVERMAN, GRABER, McKEOWN, W. FLETCHER, PAEZ, CALLAHAN, BEA, N.R. SMITH and OWENS

 For the current status of my California Open Carry lawsuit click here.

There is only one lawsuit seeking to restore Loaded Open Carry to California – Nichols v. Brown.

NRA Suckers




It seemed to me that during oral arguments Circuit Judge N.R. Smith was trying to hand Alan Gura a lifeline back to the district court in order to establish that the law has changed in regards to the Open Carry bans. He had asked Gura whether or not this case should be decided on the law at the time judgment was issued or the law today. If it is to be judged on the law today then there is nothing in the district court record for the court to make its decision based on today’s law. I think it is fair to say that Gura rejected any remand back to the district court to which Judge Smith had this to say -> Under Intermediate Scrutiny The Law Survives




Update August 24, 2016 by Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry – The Mandate has issued.  This case is closed, finished, fini, over, dead as a doornail.

347 – Final Mandate

Notice of Docket Activity

The following transaction was entered on 08/24/2016 at 11:04:43 AM PDT and filed on 08/24/2016

Case Name: Edward Peruta, et al v. County of San Diego, et al
Case Number:   10-56971
Document(s): 347 – Final Mandate

Docket Text:
AMENDED MANDATE ISSUED. SRT, HP, BGS, SPG, MMM, WAF, RAP, CMC, CTB, NRS and JBO. [10098728] [10-56971, 11-16255] (RL)

Update August 15, 2016 by Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry – FULL COURT PETITION DENIED.  Now we wait for the mandate to issue (7 to 30 days from August 15, 2016) at which point this case is over as far as the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is concerned.  All that is left for the plaintiffs is to file a cert petition with the US Supreme Court which will be denied.

The following transaction was entered on 08/15/2016 at 1:24:41 PM PDT and filed on 08/15/2016

Case Name: Edward Peruta, et al v. County of San Diego, et al
Case Number:   10-56971
Document(s): Document(s)

 

Docket Text:
Filed order (SIDNEY R. THOMAS) The full court was advised of appellants’ petitions for full court en banc rehearing (Docket Entry Nos. [334] and [335]). A judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc by the full court. The matter failed to receive a majority of the votes of the nonrecused active judges in favor of full court en banc consideration. Fed. R. App. P. 35. Accordingly, the petitions for full court en banc rehearing (Docket Entry Nos. [334] and [335]) are denied. In No. 10-56971, appellants’ motion for leave to file a reply brief (Docket Entry No. [344]) is denied as moot. [10087152] [10-56971, 11-16255] (OC)

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – July 15,  2016 – The Intervenor State of California and Defendant Sheriff Prieto filed their responses to the petition(s) for an en banc Full Court rehearing.

Intervenor State of California in 10-56971 response to Petition for Rehearing En Banc

Response to Petition for Full Court Rehearing from Sheriff Prieto

Re-send: 11-16255 Adam Richards, et al v. Ed Prieto, et al “File Answer or Response to Petition for Rehearing/En Banc”

Docket Text:
Filed (ECF) Appellees County of Yolo and Ed Prieto in 11-16255 response to petition for rehearing en banc. Date of service: 07/15/2016. [10051853]. [11-16255, 10-56971]–[COURT UPDATE: Updated docket text to reflect content of filing.07/15/2016 by SLM] (Whitesides, John)

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – June 24,  2016 – The Pertua/Richards petitions to have their cases reheard before a full en banc court is going to delay issuance of the mandate which, in turn, is going to delay the dismissal of these concealed carry lawsuits.

Update June 23, 2016 by Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry – Today, the SAF filed a petition for a full en banc court rehearing (currently 28 judges).  They know they aren’t going to get it but because of this petition, I will have to file for another stay in my appeal.  Here is the petition.  It is large and so you will probably have to download it locally to read it.  Richards v. Prieto – Petition for a Full Court en banc rehearing

Update June 9, 2016 by Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry – Today, an en banc panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that there is no right to carry a weapon concealed in public.

Update May 16, 2016 by Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry – Today marks eleven months since the en banc oral arguments took place and the case was taken under submission for a decision.  It has been five years since the appeal was filed.  It has been 2,568 days since this case was filed!  There is no legitimate excuse for the en banc panel to take this long to render an opinion.

Update April 16, 2016 by Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry – Today marks ten months since the en banc oral arguments took place and the case was taken under submission for a decision.  It has been four years and eleven months since the appeal was filed.  There is no legitimate excuse for the en banc panel to take this long to render an opinion.

Update March 16, 2016 by Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry – Today marks nine months since the en banc oral arguments took place and the case was taken under submission for a decision.  It has been four years and ten months since the appeal was filed.  There is no legitimate excuse for the en banc panel to take this long to render an opinion.

Update February 16, 2016 by Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry – Today marks eight months since the en banc oral arguments took place and the case was taken under submission for a decision.  It has been four years and nine months since the appeal was filed.

Update January 16, 2016 by Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry – Today marks seven months since the en banc oral arguments took place and the case was taken under submission for a decision.  It has been four years and eight months since the appeal was filed.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – January 4,  2016 – Nothing new.

Update December 16, 2015 by Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry – Today marks six months since the en banc oral arguments took place and the case was taken under submission for a decision.  It has been four years, seven months and one day since the appeal was filed.

Update November 16, 2015 by Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry – Today marks five months since the en banc oral arguments took place and the case was taken under submission for a decision.  It has been four years, six months and one day since the appeal was filed.

Update October 30, 2015 by Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry – Nothing new.

Update August 21, 2015 by Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry – The author of the latest non-party letter to Judge Pregerson took exception with my critique of his letter and so I told him if he sent a letter to the Clerk of the Court asking that it be withdrawn then I would delete my critique from this website.  He did and therefore I did.

Update July 21, 2015 by Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry – Keep in mind that the case was taken under submission for a decision by the en banc court on June 16, 2015 at the conclusion of oral arguments.  The 11 en banc judges met in private conference immediately after the oral arguments and voted on what to do with the case.  In the same conference the case was assigned to one of the eleven en banc judges to write a majority opinion.  Once the majority decision is finished, along with any concurrences and/or dissents, the court will publish its decision.  This could take a month or it could take three years.  When it happens it happens and there is nothing we can do to speed up the decision.  After nine months have passed (March 16, 2016) the parties to the lawsuit can send a letter to the court reminding them that a decision has still not been issued and at anytime, the parties can file a writ with Justice Kennedy asking for relief while the appeal is pending.

 




 

Richards v. Prieto was disposed of with an unpublished memorandum.  The ink wasn’t dry on the Peruta v. San Diego decision when the lawyer for Richards (Alan Gura) withdraw his constitutional challenge to two provisions of the state CCW statute: the “good cause” and “good moral character” provisions.

Here is a link to many of the district court and appellate court briefs.

Here is a link to many of the district court briefs which can be downloaded for free.

Here is a link to many of the appellate briefs which can be downloaded for free.

The response to the en banc petition was filed on April 11, 2014 (Errata on April 14th) which hopefully means we’ll have a decision on whether or not to grant the petition within 90 days of April 11th.  On May 1, 2014 the court said that it is deferring the disposition of the pending petition for rehearing en banc until the Peruta decision is resolved.

Here is a link to the memorandum which reversed and remanded the trial court decision.  Unpublished decisions cannot be cited in support of any other lawsuits.  The California Attorney General is very likely to file a petition asking for an en banc rehearing if the Sheriff of Yolo County does not.

You will need a Federal PACER account to access the individual court filings from the online court docket.



Update June 19, 2015 by Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry – The Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority.

Update June 16, 2015 by Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry – Here are the En Banc oral arguments for Peruta v. San Diego / Richards v. Prieto.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – June 8,  2015 – We know now who the judges on the en banc panel are.  This is an interesting mix of judges.   Here are my predictions on how each judge will vote.

2015-06-16  3:30 pm  Courtroom 1, 3rd Floor Rm 338, James R. Browning U.S. Courthouse, San Francisco – En Banc
Before: THOMAS , Chief Judge; and PREGERSON, SILVERMAN, GRABER, McKEOWN, W. FLETCHER, PAEZ, CALLAHAN, BEA, N.R. SMITH and OWENS, Circuit Judges
Case No. Title Nature Origin Time / Side
10-56971
11-16255
Edward Peruta v. County of San Diego – An appeal by San Diego County residents in their action challenging the implementation of California statutes governing the licensing of people to carry loaded, concealed weapons in public; consolidated with Richard, 11-16255 for rehearing en banc. [3:09-cv-02371-IEG-BGS] Civil S. CA 30 min

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – June 3,  2015 – Fox News request to video the hearing for later broadcast has been granted.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – June 1,  2015 – My motion to participate in oral arguments filed on May 20th was denied today.  The motion to intervene by private attorney Vogler was also denied.  He was granted leave to file an Amicus brief.  I’ve said all along that my motion would likely be denied.  After all, the State of California wasn’t allowed any extra time to argue and what time they will have to argue was left entirely up to the Defendants by order of the court.  If the Defendants hadn’t given them part of their time then the State of California would not be participating in oral arguments.  So why did I file the motion?  The short answer is if you don’t try then you will never know if you would have succeeded.  Whether or not my motion or my Amicus brief, which was granted, had any effect on any of the eleven members of the en banc court remains to be seen.  One thing is certain, ALL of the parties in the case claim that Open Carry can be banned.  If the en banc decision goes beyond the question of concealed carry and holds that Open Carry can be banned then it does so without the fig leaf of impartiality it would have had were I, or someone else, allowed to participate in oral arguments in defense of the Second Amendment Open Carry right.  

The motion to intervene by the state is still pending and will likely still be pending until a decision is published.  If Peruta is remanded back to the district court then the state’s motion becomes moot.

The judges who will hear oral arguments are usually released on the Monday of the week before oral arguments are to take place.  Today, the court released the names of the judges who will hear oral arguments in the cases for the week of June 12th.  Next Monday we should know the names of the judges who will sit on the en banc panel for Peruta/Richards.

Docket Text:
Filed order (SIDNEY R. THOMAS) Proposed Intervenor Michael Vogler’s motion for leave to intervene is DENIED. Because Mr. Vogler moved to intervene prior to the deadline for submitting amicus briefs, his motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief is GRANTED. [9557040] [10-56971, 11-16255] (SM)

Docket Text:
Filed order (SIDNEY R. THOMAS) The motion of amicus curiae Charles Nichols to participate in oral argument is DENIED. [9557087] [10-56971, 11-16255] (SM)

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – May 28,  2015 – It might just be a case of housecleaning discovering that an Amicus brief filed back in February had not been officially ordered as filed by the court but, in any event, the Legal Community Against Violence brief was officially filed today with instructions for them to file 25 paper copies within seven days.

Docket Text:
Filed clerk order: The amicus brief [133] submitted by Legal Community Against Violence is filed. Within 7 days of the filing of this order, filer is ordered to file 25 copies of the brief in paper format, accompanied by certification, attached to the end of each copy of the brief, that the brief is identical to the version submitted electronically. Cover color: green. The paper copies shall be printed from the PDF version of the brief created from the word processing application, not from PACER or Appellate ECF. [9553559] (TH)

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – May 21,  2015 – Sheriff Prieto filed a 28(j) letter regarding the Wrenn v. DC preliminary injunction.  Here is the letter.

General Docket
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals Docket #: 11-16255 Docketed: 05/19/2011
Nature of Suit: 3950 Constitutionality of State Statutes
Adam Richards, et al v. Ed Prieto, et al
Appeal From: U.S. District Court for Eastern California, Sacramento
Fee Status: Paid
Case Type Information:
     1) civil
     2) private
     3) null
Originating Court Information:
     District: 0972-2 : 2:09-cv-01235-MCE-DAD
     Court Reporter: Diane J. Shepard, Official Court Reporter
     Trial Judge: Morrison C. England, Junior, Chief District Judge
     Date Filed: 05/05/2009
     Date Order/Judgment:      Date Order/Judgment EOD:      Date NOA Filed:      Date Rec’d COA:
     05/16/2011      05/16/2011      05/16/2011      05/19/2011

05/20/2015  196  Filed (ECF) Appellants Calguns Foundation, Inc., Adam Richards, Second Amendment Foundation and Brett Stewart in 11-16255 citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 05/20/2015. [9543489] [11-16255, 10-56971] (AG) [Entered: 05/20/2015 07:04 AM]
05/20/2015  197  Filed (ECF) notice of appearance of Edward C. DuMont for Intervenor State of California in 10-56971, Amicus Curiae State of California in 11-16255. Date of service: 05/20/2015. [9544710] [10-56971, 11-16255] (ECD) [Entered: 05/20/2015 02:25 PM]
05/20/2015  198 Added attorney Edward C. DuMont for State of California. [9544735] [10-56971, 11-16255] (RL) [Entered: 05/20/2015 02:31 PM]
05/20/2015  199  Filed (ECF) Acknowledgment of hearing notice. Location: San Francisco. Filed by Attorney Mr. Edward C. DuMont for Intervenor State of California in 10-56971, Attorney Mr. Edward C. DuMont for Amicus Curiae State of California in 11-16255. [9544774] [10-56971, 11-16255] (ECD) [Entered: 05/20/2015 02:37 PM]
05/20/2015  200  Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: AF): The motion of Patrick Missud for leave to file an amicus brief is DENIED. Pursuant to this Court’s prior order, any amicus brief must have been filed within 35 days of the entry of the order granting rehearing en banc. [9545182] [10-56971, 11-16255] (AF) [Entered: 05/20/2015 04:52 PM]
05/20/2015  201 COURT DELETED INCORRECT ENTRY. Incorrect ECF filing. Notice about deletion sent to case participants registered for electronic filing. Correct Entry: [202]. Original Text: Filed (ECF) Amicus Curiae Charles Nichols in 10-56971, 11-16255 Correspondence: Motion of Amicus Curiae Charles Nichols for Leave to Participate in Oral Argument. Date of service: 05/20/2015 [9545249] [10-56971, 11-16255] (CN) [Entered: 05/20/2015 06:34 PM]
05/20/2015  202  Filed (ECF) Amicus Curiae Charles Nichols in 10-56971, 11-16255 Motion for miscellaneous relief [Motion to participate in oral argument]. Date of service: 05/20/2015. [9545505] [10-56971, 11-16255] –[COURT ENTERED FILING to correct entry [201] .] (TL) [Entered: 05/21/2015 09:20 AM]
05/21/2015  203 Terminated Amicus Curiae – Pending Patrick Missud in 10-56971 and Amicus Curiae – Pending Patrick Missud in 11-16255 [9545548] [10-56971, 11-16255] (AF) [Entered: 05/21/2015 09:34 AM]
05/21/2015  204  Filed (ECF) Appellees County of Yolo and Ed Prieto citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 05/21/2015. [9545574] [11-16255] –[COURT UPDATE: Spread to case 10-56971. 05/21/2015 by TL] (JAW) [Entered: 05/21/2015 09:45 AM]
05/21/2015  205  Submitted (ECF) Intervenor brief for review and filed Motion to intervene. Submitted by Michael John Vogler. Date of service: 05/21/2015. [9545868] [10-56971, 11-16255] (MJV) [Entered: 05/21/2015 11:30 AM]

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – May 20,  2015 – 6:50 PM UPDATE – I’ve just filed a motion to participate in oral arguments for Peruta/Richards.  Here’s hoping that my motion is granted.  Even if the motion isn’t granted I have at least given eleven judges of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals something to consider when asking questions to those participating in oral arguments.  For example, the three judge panel thought that the exemption to “have” a loaded firearm on one’s private residential property meant that one can “carry” a loaded firearm on his private residential property.  Neither did the three judge panel understand that, by default, Open Carry is legal everywhere in the State of California and, by default, concealed carry is illegal everywhere in the State of California.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – May 20,  2015 – The motion by Patrick Missud mentioned in my May 14, 2015 update has been denied.  As you may recall, in his motion he called for the execution of a half dozen or so Federal judges.  I am certain that these judges are now relived to discover that the motion will not be granted and therefore they will not be executed.  Here is the Order denying motion by Patrick Missud.

Docket Text:
Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: AF): The motion of Patrick Missud for leave to file an amicus brief is DENIED. Pursuant to this Court’s prior order, any amicus brief must have been filed within 35 days of the entry of the order granting rehearing en banc.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – May 20,  2015 – The attorney for Richards, Alan Gura, filed what is known as a 28(j) letter notifying the court (through the Clerk of the Court) of the preliminary injunction issued in Wrenn V. DC.  Here is the 28j letter giving notice of the supplemental authority in Wrenn v DC.  Here is the attachment (a copy of the decision in Wrenn v. DC).

 

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – May 14,  2015 – There were two developments in the case today.  One was expected the other was not.  The motion for Proposed Intervenor State of California to participate in oral argument was GRANTED.  “The State of California shall share argument time with (1) the County of San Diego and Sheriff Gore and (2) the County of Yolo and Sheriff Prieto, in an amount to be determined by those parties.”  Note that California Attorney General Harris’ motion to intervene in the Peruta case still has not been granted and if the Peruta case is remanded back to the district court I believe that her motion will be denied as moot.  If Peruta is not remanded then I believe that her motion to intervene will be granted, unless the en banc decision is in favor of Peruta, limited to Sheriff Gore and unpublished.

The other development was the filing of a proposed Amicus Brief in which the proposed Amicus, Patrick Missud, appears to be calling for the execution of a half dozen or so Federal judges.  Putting aside that he filed his motion past the deadline and putting aside the fact his motion is unlikely to be granted, it appears that Mr. Missud has misconstrued the meaning of the word Amicus and the meaning of the term Amicus Brief.   Turning to Webster’s online dictionary:

Definition of AMICUS CURIAE

:  one (as a professional person or organization) that is not a party to a particular litigation but that is permitted by the court to advise it in respect to some matter of law that directly affects the case in question

Origin of AMICUS CURIAE

New Latin, literally, friend of the court

First Known Use: 1612
It might just be me but I don’t think calling for the execution of other people, under any circumstance, qualifies as “friendly.”

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – May 13,  2015 – The Brady Campaign filed a Motion for Clarification on Oral Argument at 4:01 PM.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – May 12,  2015 – The State of California, with the consent of all plaintiffs and defendants, has filed a Motion for Leave to Participate in Oral Argument.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – May 7,  2015 – The lawyer for SAF/CalGuns, Alan Gura, finally got around to filing his Acknowledgment of hearing notice today.  Note that it is dated as being signed on May 1st and this is May 7th.

Docket Text:
Filed (ECF) Acknowledgment of hearing notice. Location: San Francisco. Filed by Attorney Mr. Alan Gura for Appellants Calguns Foundation, Inc., Adam Richards, Second Amendment Foundation and Brett Stewart in 11-16255. [9528175] [11-16255, 10-56971] (AG)

 

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – May 6,  2015 – The lawyers for the Sheriffs have filed their hearing notices.  We still do not know who will be arguing on behalf of the plaintiffs.  Presumably Alan Gura will represent the SAF but who the NRA lawyer is at this point is anyone’s guess.

 

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – May 1,  2015 – Today, Chief Judge Thomas changed the hearing date to June 16th at 3:30 PM.  There is an advantage to having the case being scheduled last in the day, it is easier for the oral arguments to run long.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – April 30, 2015 – There have been a number of Amicus briefs filed, the deadline for filing is today.  They can be found under the April, 30th update on the Peruta v. San Diego page at this site.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – April 20, 2015 – Today, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas issued an Order granting My Motion to file My Amicus Brief in Peruta v. San Diego / Richards v. Prieto.  I am now officially one of the Amici in the case.  

04/20/2015  129  Filed order (SIDNEY R. THOMAS) The motion of Charles Nichols for leave to file an amicus brief is GRANTED. [9501768] (SM) [Entered: 04/20/2015 02:17 PM]

 

Update April 17, 2015 – a couple of strange, but expected, things happened with my motion to file an Amicus brief in Peruta v. San Diego. DKT127 indicates no deficiencies.  That part makes since as I filed the original and three copies required for a motion.  Had the ECF system allowed me to file electronically then it would have been necessary simply to upload the pdf of the motion with the Amicus brief attached.  DKT128 is where it seems to have gone off the rails.  I did not file 17 copies of my Amicus brief, I filed three in accordance with the rules.  Had my motion been granted then I would have been directed to file 25 paper copies as the State of Hawaii was directed to do in DKT128. Finally, my Amicus brief was in regards to Peruta, I made no mention of Richards v. Prieto.  I have no idea what will happen next.

04/16/2015  126 Entered appearance of Amicus Curiae – Pending Charles Nichols. [9500411] [10-56971, 11-16255] (TLH) [Entered: 04/17/2015 03:30 PM]
04/16/2015  127  Filed Amicus Curiae – Pending Charles Nichols motion to file amicus brief in support of neither party. Deficiencies: None. Served on 04/15/2015. [9500416] [10-56971, 11-16255] (TLH) [Entered: 04/17/2015 03:33 PM]
04/16/2015  128  Received original and 17 copies of Amicus Curiae – Pending Charles Nichols amicus brief in 15 pages. Served on: 04/15/2015. Major deficiencies: motion to become amicus pending. (sent to en banc court) [9500477] [10-56971, 11-16255] (TLH) [Entered: 04/17/2015 03:51 PM]
04/17/2015  125  Filed clerk order: The amicus brief [124] submitted by State of Hawaii is filed. Within 7 days of the filing of this order, filer is ordered to file 25 copies of the brief in paper format, accompanied by certification, attached to the end of each copy of the brief, that the brief is identical to the version submitted electronically. Cover color: green. The paper copies shall be printed from the PDF version of the brief created from the word processing application, not from PACER or Appellate ECF. [9499782] [10-56971, 11-16255] (TLH) [Entered: 04/17/2015 11:09 AM]

Update April 16, 2015 – Amicus briefs in opposition to Peruta and Amicus briefs in support of neither party are due by 11:59 pm tonight.  So far (10:25 pm), the only one to electronically file an Amicus Brief in opposition is the State of Hawaii Amicus Brief.  My Amicus brief in support of neither party was filed by mail today with the Clerk of the Court at 11:35 am.  Whether or not it makes to the docket remains to be seen.  The deadline for filing all Amicus briefs, with or without consent of all parties is at the end of the month.  The 4/6/2015 Order of the Court was unclear as to whether or not Amicus briefs could be filed without consent (Hawaii being a state doesn’t need consent) of the parties or whether a motion is required if one or both sides withholds its consent.

04/16/2015  124  Submitted (ECF) Amicus brief for review (by government or with consent per FRAP 29(a)). Submitted by State of Hawaii. Date of service: 04/16/2015. [9499228] [10-56971, 11-16255] (GDL) [Entered: 04/16/2015 09:00 PM]

Update April 15, 2015 – 

04/15/2015  122  Filed (ECF) notice of appearance of Stefan B. Tahmassebi for Amicus Curiae Congress of Racial Equality in 10-56971. Date of service: 04/15/2015. [9496613] [10-56971, 11-16255] (SBT) [Entered: 04/15/2015 12:13 PM]
04/15/2015  123 Added attorney Stefan B. Tahmassebi for Congress of Racial Equality.. [9496757] [10-56971, 11-16255] (RL) [Entered: 04/15/2015 01:21 PM]

Update April 12, 2015 –  Excerpts of Record filed.

04/10/2015  121  Submitted (ECF) excerpts of record. Submitted by Appellants Calguns Foundation, Inc., Adam Richards, Second Amendment Foundation and Brett Stewart in 11-16255. Date of service: 08/25/2011. [9490607] [11-16255, 10-56971] –[COURT UPDATE: Unapplied case 10-56971. 04/10/2015 by TL] (DK) [Entered: 04/10/2015 08:02 AM]

Update April 9, 2015 – There was an amusing Non party letter filed in both the Peruta v. San Diego and Richards v. Prieto cases.  I have nothing against shaking one’s fist at government, even if the author of the letter doesn’t know his left fist from his right fist, but in a court the shaking of one’s fist is futile except where one is certain to win or lose.  Regardless, this letter is a good example of how NOT to influence a court.

04/07/2015  120  Lodged Non-Party Armando Roman letter dated 4/3/15 re: Recent development in case. (casefiles) [9488580] [10-56971, 11-16255] (RL) [Entered: 04/08/2015 02:46 PM]

Update April 6, 2015 – Deadline for Amicus briefs set.

04/06/2015  116 Received 25 paper copies of 28(j) Supplemental Authorities [41], [42], [43], [54], [57], [58], [60], [63], [64], [66], [67], [68] (bound together into one volume) filed by appellants. (sent to en banc court) [9484815] (LA) [Entered: 04/06/2015 11:57 AM]
04/06/2015  117  Submitted (ECF) excerpts of record. Submitted by Appellants Leslie Buncher, California Rifle and Pistol Association Foundation, Mark Cleary, James Dodd and Michelle Laxson in 10-56971, Appellant Calguns Foundation, Inc. in 11-16255. Date of service: 05/24/2011. [9484821] [10-56971, 11-16255] (CDM) [Entered: 04/06/2015 11:58 AM]
04/06/2015  118 Received 25 paper copies of Amicus brief [15] filed by NRA. (sent to en banc court) [9484831] (LA) [Entered: 04/06/2015 12:02 PM]
04/06/2015  119  Filed order (SIDNEY R. THOMAS) The motion for clarification is granted. Any amicus briefs, either pertaining to the merits of the case or the denial of the intervention motion, shall be filed within 35 days of the entry of the order granting rehearing en banc. [9485015] [10-56971, 11-16255] (SM) [Entered: 04/06/2015 01:27 PM]

Update April 5, 2015 – Peruta v. San Diego & Richards v. Prieto Oral Arguments set for June 16th

WHEN AND WHERE?
The 9th Circuit has voted to rehear Peruta v. San Diego en banc. Oral arguments consolidated with Richards v. Prieto will take place at 1:00 pm on June 15, 2015 in Courtroom 1, 3rd Floor Rm 338, James R. Browning U.S. Courthouse, San Francisco – 30 minutes per side – Peruta and Richards to split 30 minutes. No word as of April 5, 2015 who will be arguing the other side. The denial of AG Harris’ petition to intervene was vacated and so odds are she will be arguing for the other side.

 

2015-06-15  3:30 pm  Courtroom 1, 3rd Floor Rm 338, James R. Browning U.S. Courthouse, San Francisco – En Banc
Case No. Title Nature Origin Time / Side
10-56971 Edward Peruta v. County of San Diego Civil S. CA 30 min

 

WHAT JUDGES WILL SIT ON THE EN BANC PANEL?
9th Circuit Chief Judge Thomas was the dissenting judge in the Peruta three judge panel decision which has now been vacated by a majority vote of the 29 active judges on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Chief Judge Thomas will preside over the en banc hearing. Ten other active judges will be chosen at random to join the Chief Judge on the en banc panel. Odds are we will not know who those judges are until June 8th. Typically the names of the judges on panels are released to the general public on the Monday of the week preceding argument. I do not know how judges are randomly chosen.

WHAT HAPPENS AFTER ORAL ARGUMENT?
At the conclusion of each day’s argument, the judges on each panel confer on the cases they have heard. Each judge expresses his or her tentative views and votes in reverse order of seniority. The judges reach a tentative decision regarding the disposition of each case and whether it should be in the form of a published opinion. The presiding judge then assigns each case to a judge for the preparation and submission of a disposition.

WHEN WILL THERE BE A DECISION?
We’ve only had one Second Amendment case go before an en banc panel, Nordyke v. King. The first time a three judge panel decision was vacated isn’t of much help because the en banc panel waited for the McDonald v. Chicago decision by SCOTUS. On November 28, 2011 former Chief Judge Kozinski filed an order that the case would again be heard en banc. The timeline was: Argued En Banc March 19, 2012 – Submitted May 24, 2012 – Filed June 1, 2012

If I recall correctly, the reason for the departure from the typical procedure of deciding the case and assigning it to a judge for a majority opinion at the end of the day oral argument takes place was because the case was sent to mediation. The County of Alameda, in the 13th year of litigation, had suddenly discovered that its local ordinance did not prohibit gun shows at the Alameda County Fairgrounds and so Nordyke isn’t much help to us. There is no deadline for a decision in an en banc hearing and it is highly unlikely that AG Harris is going to suddenly discover that “may issue” actually means “shall issue.”

Despite all the procedural BS that has led up to this, I don’t think that a decision from the en banc panel will take long. One need only read Judge Thomas’ dissent in Peruta to understand why?

Quoting Judge Thomas from his dissent in Peruta:

“The majority’s first — and crucial — mistake is to misidentify the “conduct at issue.” Chester, 628 F.3d at 680. The majority frames the question as “whether a responsible, law-abiding citizen has a right under the Second Amendment to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.” This is certainly an important issue, but it is not the question we are called upon to answer. The Plaintiffs are not seeking a general license to carry firearms in public for self-defense — they are seeking a license to carry concealed firearms in public.”

“In sum, employing the analysis prescribed by the Supreme Court, the answer to the historical inquiry is clear: carrying a concealed weapon in public was not understood to be within the scope of the right protected by the Second Amendment at the time of ratification. This conclusion is in accord with Heller’s recognition that there were “longstanding prohibitions” on firearms that were “presumptively lawful,”…and the Supreme Court’s observation in Robertson that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms … is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons,”… See Peterson, 707 F.3d at 1211. Because the right asserted is not protected by the Second Amendment, our inquiry should be at an end: San Diego County’s good cause requirement for a person to carry a concealed weapon in San Diego County is constitutional.”

And like a row of dominoes, as Peruta/Richards falls so fall every other concealed carry case pending before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals or working its way on up. Next in line will be my Open Carry lawsuit, Nichols v. Brown, wherein this comment from Judge Thomas’ dissent will be put to the test:

“Although all the nineteenth-century cases cited by the majority cautioned against restrictions on the open carrying of weapons, none of them — except the discredited, outlier Bliss — suggests that restrictions on carrying concealed weapons implicate the Second Amendment. See Chandler, 1 La.Ann. at 490; Nunn, 1 Ga. at 251; Reid, 1 Ala. at 616-17. And nothing in these cases or Chase’s Blackstone even hints that a restriction on carrying concealed weapons would become invalid if restrictions were placed on open carry. Rather, they suggest thatrestrictions on concealed carry are always valid, while there are limits to restrictions on open carry.

And what are those restrictions on Open Carry in California? Well, if one lives in an incorporated city or in prohibited places of unincorporated county territory then one cannot carry a loaded firearm, openly or concealed, on any part of his residential property including the curtilage of his home and even extending into one’s house or other structures on his property absent a substantial barrier to entry because the California courts in 1976 interpreted the private property exemption to mean that one can have, but not carry, a loaded firearm on his property. With the possible exception of an antique handgun, one is prohibited from openly carrying a handgun in his motor vehicle. Putting a modern, unloaded handgun inside of a fully enclosed locked container exempts one from the recently enacted ban on openly carrying unloaded handguns but not from the ban on carrying a concealed weapon without a permit as a handgun, even an unloaded one, carried in a container is carried concealed and can only be transported subject to a limited number of statutory exemptions leaving only unloaded long guns to be “carried” in one’s motor vehicle. Step outside of your motor vehicle in an incorporated city with a loaded or unloaded long gun which is not fully encased and you breaking a law.

If one is outside of his motor vehicle in a prohibited area (where the discharge of a firearm is prohibited) in unincorporated county territory then one is limited to the Open Carry of an unloaded long gun, or antique unloaded handgun.

For me to prevail on my Second Amendment challenge, all that is required is for the appellate court to conclude that I have the Second Amendment right to openly carry a loaded flintlock rifle on my porch.

And I did not limit my lawsuit to the Second Amendment.

 

 

Update April 3, 2015 – More administrative activity, nothing noteworthy:

04/03/2015  115  Filed (ECF) Appellants Leslie Buncher, California Rifle and Pistol Association Foundation, Mark Cleary, James Dodd, Michelle Laxson and Edward Peruta Motion for miscellaneous relief [Clarification on applicable deadline for amicus curiae to file briefs supporting Peruta Appellants]. Date of service: 04/03/2015. [9483124] [10-56971] –[COURT UPDATE: Spread to case 11-16255. 04/03/2015 by TL] (CDM) [Entered: 04/03/2015 10:27 AM]

Update April 2, 2015 – Lots of administrative activity, nothing noteworthy:

04/02/2015  96 Received 25 paper copies of Amicus brief [7769312-2] filed by Center For Constitutional Jurisprudence, DRGO and LEAA. (sent to en banc court) [9481499] [10-56971, 11-16255] (TLH) [Entered: 04/02/2015 10:04 AM]
04/02/2015  97 Received 25 paper copies of Amicus brief [7856018-2] filed by Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, International Brotherhood of Police Officers and Police Foundation. (sent to en banc court) [9481579] [10-56971, 11-16255] (TLH) [Entered: 04/02/2015 10:35 AM]
04/02/2015  98 Received 25 paper copies of Amicus brief [7763613-2] filed by Congress of Racial Equality. (sent to en banc court) [9481624] [10-56971, 11-16255] (TLH) [Entered: 04/02/2015 10:51 AM]
04/02/2015  99 Received 25 paper copies of Amicus brief [7767759-2] filed by Independence Institute and ILEETA. (sent to en banc court) [9481647] [10-56971, 11-16255] (TLH) [Entered: 04/02/2015 11:00 AM]
04/02/2015  100 Received 25 paper copies of Amicus brief [7767051-2] filed by NRA. (sent to en banc court) [9481684] [10-56971, 11-16255] (TLH) [Entered: 04/02/2015 11:10 AM]
04/02/2015  101 Received 25 paper copies of Amicus brief [7768686-2] filed by Calguns Foundation, Inc., Adam Richards, Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. and Brett Stewart. (sent to en banc court) [9481727] [10-56971, 11-16255] (TLH) [Entered: 04/02/2015 11:23 AM]
04/02/2015  102 Received 25 paper copies of Reply brief [7883641-2] filed by appellants. (sent to en banc court) [9481765] [10-56971, 11-16255] (TLH) [Entered: 04/02/2015 11:32 AM]
04/02/2015  103 Received 25 paper copies of 28(j) letters [7813793-2], [7935787-2], [7939320-2], [7957471-2], [8098546-2], [8146967-2], [8392999-2], [8426271-2], [8434734-2], [8610109-2], [8781590-2], [8891788-2] (bound together in one volume) filed by appellants. (sent to en banc court) [9481831] [10-56971, 11-16255] (TLH) [Entered: 04/02/2015 12:09 PM]
04/02/2015  104 Received 25 paper copies of Errata to Opening brief [7775088-2] filed by appellants. (sent to en banc court) [9481856] [10-56971, 11-16255] (TLH) [Entered: 04/02/2015 12:25 PM]
04/01/2015  94  Filed order (SIDNEY R. THOMAS) These appeals are consolidated for rehearing en banc. [9480674] [10-56971, 11-16255] (SM) [Entered: 04/01/2015 02:38 PM]
04/02/2015  106 Received 25 paper copies of Opening brief [11] filed by appellants. (sent to en banc court) [9482209] (LA) [Entered: 04/02/2015 02:35 PM]
04/02/2015  107 Received 25 copies of excerpts of record in 2 volumes [13] filed on 08/25/2011 by appellants. (sent to en banc court) [9482223] (LA) [Entered: 04/02/2015 02:40 PM]
04/02/2015  108 Received 25 paper copies of Reply brief [37] filed by appellants. (sent to en banc court) [9482233] (LA) [Entered: 04/02/2015 02:41 PM]
04/02/2015  109 Received 25 paper copies of Amicus brief [18] filed by California Rifle and Pistol Association Foundation. (sent to en banc court) [9482258] (LA) [Entered: 04/02/2015 02:50 PM]
04/02/2015  110 Received 25 paper copies of Amicus brief [30] filed by Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, International Brotherhood of Police Officers and Police Foundation. (sent to en banc court) [9482338] (LA) [Entered: 04/02/2015 03:09 PM]
04/02/2015  111 Received 25 paper copies of Amicus brief [77] filed by International Brotherhood of Police Officers and Police Foundation. (sent to en banc court) [9482350] (LA) [Entered: 04/02/2015 03:11 PM]
04/02/2015  112 Entered appearance of Amicus Curiae Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. [9482370] (LA) [Entered: 04/02/2015 03:18 PM]
04/02/2015  113 Received 25 paper copies of Amicus brief [74] filed by Robert T. Doyle and Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. (sent to en banc court) [9482379] (LA) [Entered: 04/02/2015 03:20 PM]
04/02/2015  114  Sent Notice requesting electronic excerpts in 14 days. [9482385] (SOS) [Entered: 04/02/2015 03:21 PM]

Update April 1, 2015 – Peruta v. San Diego and Richards v. Prieto have been consolidated for rehearing en banc.

04/01/2015  94  Filed order (SIDNEY R. THOMAS) These appeals are consolidated for rehearing en banc. [9480674] [10-56971, 11-16255] (SM) [Entered: 04/01/2015 02:38 PM]
04/01/2015  95 Received 25 paper copies of Amicus brief [7868845-2] filed by California Peace Officers’ Association, California Police Chiefs’ Association and California Sherrifs’ Association. (sent to en banc court) [9481087] [10-56971, 11-16255] (TLH) [Entered: 04/01/2015 04:44 PM]

Update March 31, 2015 –  Nothing significant.  Just paper copies of an Amicus brief filed.

03/31/2015 93 Received 25 paper copies of Answering brief [24] filed by County of Yolo and Ed Prieto. (for en banc court) [9479046] (LA) [Entered: 03/31/2015 02:49 PM]

Update March 30, 2015 –  Nothing significant.  Just paper copies of an Amicus brief filed.

03/30/2015  92 Received 25 paper copies of Amicus brief [29] filed by Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, George Gascon, Legal Community Against Violence and Major Cities Chiefs Association. (for en banc court) [9476980] (LA) [Entered: 03/30/2015 01:58 PM]

 

Update March 26, 2015 – The 9th Circuit has voted to rehear the case en banc.  This means the 3 judge opinion is vacated.

03/26/2015  90  Filed Order for PUBLICATION (SIDNEY R. THOMAS) Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35(a) and Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel disposition shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit. [9473554] (RP) [Entered: 03/26/2015 01:05 PM]
03/26/2015  91  Filed order (SIDNEY R. THOMAS) En banc oral argument will take place during the week of June 15, 2015, in San Francisco, California. The date and time will be determined by separate order. For further information or special requests regarding scheduling, please contact Deputy Clerk Paul Keller at paul_keller@ca9.uscourts.gov or (415) 355-8026. Within seven days from the date of this order, the parties shall forward to the Clerk of Court twenty-five additional paper copies of the original briefs (including amicus briefs) and excerpts of record. The paper copies must be accompanied by certification (attached to the end of each copy of the brief) that the brief is identical to the version submitted electronically. A sample certificate is available at http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/cmecf/Certificate-for-Brief-in- Paper-Format.pdf. The paper copies shall be printed from the PDF version of the brief created from the word processing application, not from PACER or Appellate ECF. [9473785] (WL) [Entered: 03/26/2015 02:27 PM]

Update February 20, 2015 – The appeal is still in limbo and this isn’t the only “right to carry” case being stonewalled by the 9th Circuit.  There is one case that was filed just after the Heller decision which was published in June of 2008 which is still languishing on appeal.

Update February 2, 2015 – The stay is lifted.

02/02/2015  89  Filed order (SIDNEY R. THOMAS, DIARMUID F. O’SCANNLAIN and CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN) The Appellees’ motion to terminate the stay of consideration of their petition for rehearing en banc is GRANTED. [9404878] (WL) [Entered: 02/02/2015 12:02 PM]

Update January 31, 2015 – The appeal is still stayed.  The December 16, 2014 motion to lift the stay is still pending.

Update January 6, 2014 – It has now been two years and one month since oral arguments were heard in Peruta, Richards and Baker.

Update December 16, 2014 – It has been months since there has been any activity in this appeal (the appeal was stayed pending a final resolution in Peruta).  Today, the Defendants filed a motion to lift the stay.  Here is a copy of the motion to lift the stay -> Richards-v.-Prieto_Appellees-Motion-for-Relief-from-Stay[1]

Update May 1, 2014 – Alan Gura’s ploy to moot Peruta backfired.  The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order effectively staying the en banc proceedings in Richards v. Prieto pending Peruta.

05/01/2014  87  Filed order (DIARMUID F. O’SCANNLAIN, SIDNEY R. THOMAS and CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN) Disposition of the pending petition for rehearing en banc is deferred pending this Court’s resolution of pending post-opinion matters in Peruta v. County of San Diego, No. 10-56971. [9078980] (WL)

Update April 14, 2014 – SAF/CalGuns.nuts filed an opposition to rehearing en banc and an errata to their opposition.

04/11/2014  85  Filed (ECF) Appellants Calguns Foundation, Inc., Adam Richards, Second Amendment Foundation and Brett Stewart response to Petition for Rehearing En Banc. Date of service: 04/11/2014. [9055947].–[Edited: Cleaned up docket text to reflect content of filing. 04/14/2014 by RY] (DK)
04/14/2014  86  Filed (ECF) Appellants Calguns Foundation, Inc., Adam Richards, Second Amendment Foundation and Brett Stewart Correspondence: Errata to [85] Response to petition for rehearing en banc. Date of service: 04/14/2014. [9056497]–[COURT UPDATE: Edited docket text to reflect content of filing. Resent NDA. 04/14/2014 by RY] (AG)

Update April 12, 2014 – SAF/CalGuns.nuts filed an opposition to an en banc rehearing.

03/28/2014  83 Received 20 paper copies of Amicus brief [74] filed by Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence and Marin County Sheriff Robert Doyle (entry # 74). (Records) [9039294] (RL)
03/31/2014  81 Entered appearance of Amicus Curiae State of California. [9037353] (JFF)
03/31/2014  82  Filed clerk order: The amicus brief [80] submitted by State of California is filed. Within 7 days of the filing of this order, filer is ordered to file 20 copies of the brief in paper format, accompanied by certification, attached to the end of each copy of the brief, that the brief is identical to the version submitted electronically. Cover color: green. The paper copies shall be printed from the PDF version of the brief created from the word processing application, not from PACER or Appellate ECF. [9037382] (JFF)
04/02/2014  84 Received 20 paper copies of Amicus brief [80] filed by State of California. [9042019]–[Edited 04/02/2014 by JFF] (JFF)
04/11/2014  85  Filed (ECF) Appellants Calguns Foundation, Inc., Adam Richards, Second Amendment Foundation and Brett Stewart response to Order to set response by any party to anything, Order , Petition for Rehearing En Banc (ECF Filing) ,Petition for Rehearing En Banc (ECF Filing) for rehearing by en banc only (all active, any interested senior judges). Date of service: 04/11/2014. [9055947]. (DK)

Update March 28, 2014 – California Attorney General Harris filed an Amicus Brief for the State of California.  Here is a link.

03/28/2014  79 Received 20 paper copies of Amicus brief [77] filed by Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. [9036316] (JFF)
03/28/2014  80  Submitted (ECF) Amicus brief for review (by government or with consent per FRAP 29(a)). Submitted by State of California. Date of service: 03/28/2014. [9036451] (GDB)

Update March 26, 2014 (7:09pm) – The Amicus Briefs by the LCAV and the Brady Bunch are now filed:

03/26/2014  78  Filed clerk order: The amicus brief [77] submitted by Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence is filed. Within 7 days of the filing of this order, filer is ordered to file 20 copies of the brief in paper format, accompanied by certification, attached to the end of each copy of the brief, that the brief is identical to the version submitted electronically. Cover color: green. The paper copies shall be printed from the PDF version of the brief created from the word processing application, not from PACER or Appellate ECF. [9032422] (JFF)

Update March 25, 2014 – There has been some more activity in this case.  To access the individual court filings you will need a Federal PACER account.

03/25/2014  74  Submitted (ECF) Amicus brief for review (by government or with consent per FRAP 29(a)). Submitted by Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence and Marin County Sheriff Robert Doyle. Date of service: 03/25/2014. [9030222] (SJF)
03/25/2014  75 Entered appearance of Amicus Curiae Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence and Marin County Sheriff Robert Doyle. [9030704] (RL)
03/25/2014  76  Filed clerk order: The amicus brief [74] submitted by Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence and Marin County Sheriff Robert Doyle is filed. Within 7 days of the filing of this order, filer is ordered to file 20 copies of the brief in paper format, accompanied by certification, attached to the end of each copy of the brief, that the brief is identical to the version submitted electronically. Cover color: green. The paper copies shall be printed from the PDF version of the brief created from the word processing application, not from PACER or Appellate ECF. [9030717] (RL)
03/25/2014  77  Submitted (ECF) Amicus Brief for review. Submitted by Amicus Curiae Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Date of service: 03/25/2014. [9031290] (NRO)

Update March 21, 2014 – As expected, today the Court ordered “Appellants are directed to file a response to the petition for rehearing en banc filed with this Court on March 18, 2014. The response shall not exceed 15 pages or 4200 words and shall be filed within 21 days of the date of this order.”

03/21/2014  73  Filed order (DIARMUID F. O’SCANNLAIN, SIDNEY R. THOMAS and CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN): Appellants are directed to file a response to the petition for rehearing en banc filed with this Court on March 18, 2014. The response shall not exceed 15 pages or 4200 words and shall be filed within 21 days of the date of this order. [9026438] (AF)

Update March 18, 2014 – A petition for an en banc rehearing was filed today by Yolo County Sheriff Prieto.

In order to access the court filings below you will need a Federal PACER account.

General Docket
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals Docket #: 11-16255 Docketed: 05/19/2011
Termed: 03/05/2014
Nature of Suit: 3950 Constitutionality of State Statutes
Adam Richards, et al v. Ed Prieto, et al
Appeal From: U.S. District Court for Eastern California, Sacramento
Fee Status: Paid
Case Type Information:
     1) civil
     2) private
     3) null
Originating Court Information:
     District: 0972-2 : 2:09-cv-01235-MCE-DAD
     Court Reporter: Diane J. Shepard, Official Court Reporter
     Trial Judge: Morrison C. England, Junior, Chief District Judge
     Date Filed: 05/05/2009
     Date Order/Judgment:      Date Order/Judgment EOD:      Date NOA Filed:      Date Rec’d COA:
     05/16/2011      05/16/2011      05/16/2011      05/19/2011
Prior Cases:
     None
Current Cases:
Lead Member Start End
     Docketing Link Only
10-56971 11-16255 06/20/2011
     Related
09-16852 11-16255 05/19/2011

 

ADAM RICHARDS
Plaintiff – Appellant,
Alan Gura
Direct: 703-835-9085
[COR LD NTC Retained]
Gura & Possessky, PLLC
suite # 305
105 Oronoco Street
Alexandria, VA 22314Donald Kilmer, Jr., Attorney
Direct: 408-264-8489
[COR LD NTC Retained]
The Law Offices of Donald Kilmer
1645 Willow Street, Suite 150
San Jose, CA 95125
SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION
Plaintiff – Appellant,
Alan Gura
Direct: 703-835-9085
[COR LD NTC Retained]
(see above)Donald Kilmer, Jr., Attorney
Direct: 408-264-8489
[COR LD NTC Retained]
(see above)
CALGUNS FOUNDATION, INC.
Plaintiff – Appellant,
Alan Gura
Direct: 703-835-9085
[COR LD NTC Retained]
(see above)Donald Kilmer, Jr., Attorney
Direct: 408-264-8489
[COR LD NTC Retained]
(see above)
BRETT STEWART
Plaintiff – Appellant,
Alan Gura
Direct: 703-835-9085
[COR LD NTC Retained]
(see above)Donald Kilmer, Jr., Attorney
Direct: 408-264-8489
[COR LD NTC Retained]
(see above)
   v.
ED PRIETO
Defendant – Appellee,
Bruce A. Kilday, Attorney
Direct: 916-564-6100
[COR NTC Retained]
ANGELO, KILDAY AND KILDUFF
A Law Partnership
Suite 150
601 University Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95825Serena M. Sanders, Esquire, Attorney
Direct: 916-564-6100
[COR NTC Retained]
ANGELO, KILDAY & KILDUFF
Firm: (916) 5646100
601 University Avenue
Suite 150
Sacramento, CA 95825John A. Whitesides, Esquire, Attorney
Direct: 916-564-6100
[COR NTC Retained]
ANGELO, KILDAY AND KILDUFF
150
601 University Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95825
COUNTY OF YOLO
Defendant – Appellee,
Bruce A. Kilday, Attorney
Direct: 916-564-6100
[COR NTC Retained]
(see above)Serena M. Sanders, Esquire, Attorney
Direct: 916-564-6100
[COR NTC Retained]
(see above)John A. Whitesides, Esquire, Attorney
Direct: 916-564-6100
[COR NTC Retained]
(see above)
——————————
NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC.
Amicus Curiae,
Charles J. Cooper
Direct: 202-220-9600
[COR LD NTC Retained]
COOPER & KIRK, PLLC
1523 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
CALIFORNIA RIFLE AND PISTOL ASSOCIATION FOUNDATION
Amicus Curiae,
Carl D. Michel, Esquire, Senior Attorney
Direct: 562-216-4444
[COR LD NTC Retained]
Michel & Associates, P.C.
Suite 200
180 E. Ocean Blvd.
Long Beach, CA 90802
LEGAL COMMUNITY AGAINST VIOLENCE
Amicus Curiae,
Simon J. Frankel, Esquire, Attorney
Direct: 415-591-7052
[COR LD NTC Retained]
Covington & Burling, LLP
35th Floor
One Front Street
San Francisco, CA 94111-5356
MAJOR CITIES CHIEFS ASSOCIATION
Amicus Curiae,
Simon J. Frankel, Esquire, Attorney
Direct: 415-591-7052
[COR LD NTC Retained]
(see above)
ASSOCIATION OF PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS
Amicus Curiae,
Simon J. Frankel, Esquire, Attorney
Direct: 415-591-7052
[COR LD NTC Retained]
(see above)
GEORGE GASCON, San Francisco District Attorney
Amicus Curiae,
Simon J. Frankel, Esquire, Attorney
Direct: 415-591-7052
[COR LD NTC Retained]
(see above)
BRADY CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE
Amicus Curiae,
Neil R. O’Hanlon, Esquire, Attorney
Direct: 310-785-4660
[COR LD NTC Retained]
Hogan Lovells US LLP
Suite 1400
1999 Avenue of the Stars
Los Angeles, CA 90067
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF POLICE OFFICERS
Amicus Curiae,
Neil R. O’Hanlon, Esquire, Attorney
Direct: 310-785-4660
[COR LD NTC Retained]
(see above)
POLICE FOUNDATION
Amicus Curiae,
Neil R. O’Hanlon, Esquire, Attorney
Direct: 310-785-4660
[COR LD NTC Retained]
(see above)

ADAM RICHARDS; SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION; CALGUNS FOUNDATION, INC.; BRETT STEWART,Plaintiffs – Appellants,v.ED PRIETO; COUNTY OF YOLO,Defendants – Appellees.

05/19/2011   1 
14 pg, 588.3 KB
DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. SEND MQ: Yes. The schedule is set as follows: Mediation Questionnaire due on 05/26/2011. Transcript ordered by 06/15/2011. Transcript due 07/15/2011. Appellant Calguns Foundation, Inc., Appellant Adam Richards, Appellant Second Amendment Foundation and Appellant Brett Stewart opening brief due 08/24/2011. Appellee County of Yolo and Appellee Ed Prieto answering brief due 09/23/2011. Appellant’s optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief. [7757686] (GR)
05/19/2011   2 
1 pg, 34.58 KB
Filed representation notice [7757688] (GR)
05/25/2011   3 
3 pg, 68.37 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellants Calguns Foundation, Inc., Adam Richards, Second Amendment Foundation and Brett Stewart Mediation Questionnaire. Date of service: 05/25/2011. [7764179] (DK)
05/25/2011   4 
2 pg, 36.24 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellants Calguns Foundation, Inc., Adam Richards, Second Amendment Foundation and Brett Stewart Correspondence: Notice of Related Case. Date of service: 05/25/2011 [7764245] (DK)
05/26/2011   5 
3 pg, 235.67 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellees County of Yolo and Ed Prieto Mediation Questionnaire. Date of service: 05/26/2011. [7766115] (SMS)
05/31/2011   6 
6 pg, 60.87 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellants Calguns Foundation, Inc., Adam Richards, Second Amendment Foundation and Brett Stewart Motion to hear this case before the panel which will hear case Peruta v San Diego, Case No.: 10-56971. Date of service: 05/31/2011. [7769030] (DK)
06/09/2011   7 
3 pg, 110.62 KB
Received Appellants Calguns Foundation, Inc., Adam Richards, Second Amendment Foundation and Brett Stewart letter dated 06/08/2011 re: Motion to align oral argument with related case. [7781427] (JFF)
06/16/2011   8 
9 pg, 81.58 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellants Calguns Foundation, Inc., Adam Richards, Second Amendment Foundation and Brett Stewart reply to response (,motion to hear case with other case). Date of service: 06/16/2011. [7787810] (DK)
06/20/2011   9 
2 pg, 24.75 KB
Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: GSS): Appellants Adam Richards, et al.’s opposed motion to align No. 10-56971 and 11-16255 for oral argument is denied. However, these cases shall be calendared before the same panel if practicable. The briefing schedule established on March 7, 2011 shall remain in effect for No. 10-56971. The briefing schedule established on May 19, 2011 shall remain in effect for No. 11-16255. [7790569] [10-56971, 11-16255] (SM)
07/08/2011   10 Case rejected from Circuit Mediation Program. [7839996] [11-15229, 11-15522, 11-16132, 11-16172, 11-16192, 11-16214, 11-16255, 11-16310, 11-16327, 11-35444, 11-55142, 11-55353, 11-55423, 11-55460, 11-55461, 11-55727, 11-55764, 11-55776, 11-71303, 11-71470] (SB)
08/24/2011   11 
90 pg, 356.92 KB
Submitted (ECF) Opening brief for review. Submitted by Appellants Calguns Foundation, Inc., Adam Richards, Second Amendment Foundation and Brett Stewart. Date of service: 08/24/2011. [7870015] (AG)
08/25/2011   12 
1 pg, 80.16 KB
Filed clerk order: The opening brief [11] submitted by appellants is filed. Within 7 days of the filing of this order, filer is ordered to file 7 copies of the brief in paper format, with a blue cover, accompanied by certification, attached to the end of each copy of the brief, that the brief is identical to the version submitted electronically. [7870807] (RH)
08/25/2011   13 Filed Appellants Calguns Foundation, Inc., Adam Richards, Second Amendment Foundation and Brett Stewart excerpts of record in 2 volumes. Served on 08/24/2011. [7871217] (SLH)
08/30/2011   14 Received 7 paper copies of Opening brief [11] filed by appellants. [7876594] (SD)
08/31/2011   15 
30 pg, 93.11 KB
Submitted (ECF) Amicus brief for review (by government or with consent per FRAP 29(a)). Submitted by National Rifle Association of America, Inc.. Date of service: 08/31/2011. [7878215] (CJC)
08/31/2011   16 Entered appearance of Amicus Curiae NRA. [7878432] (LA)
08/31/2011   17 
1 pg, 80.06 KB
Filed clerk order: The amicus brief [15] submitted by NRA is filed. Within 7 days of the filing of this order, filer is ordered to file 7 copies of the brief in paper format, with a green cover, accompanied by certification, attached to the end of each copy of the brief, that the brief is identical to the version submitted electronically. [7878433] (LA)
08/31/2011   18 
43 pg, 173.47 KB
Submitted (ECF) Amicus brief for review (by government or with consent per FRAP 29(a)). Submitted by California Rifle And Pistol Association Foundation. Date of service: 08/31/2011. [7878586] (CDM)
09/01/2011   19 Entered appearance of Amicus Curiae California Rifle and Pistol Association Foundation. [7878947] (LA)
09/01/2011   20 
1 pg, 79.69 KB
Filed clerk order: The amicus brief [18] submitted by California Rifle and Pistol Association Foundation is filed. Within 7 days of the filing of this order, filer is ordered to file 7 copies of the brief in paper format, with a green cover, accompanied by certification, attached to the end of each copy of the brief, that the brief is identical to the version submitted electronically. [7878949] (LA)
09/02/2011   21 Received paper copies of Amicus brief [15] filed by NRA. [7881250] (DB)
09/06/2011   22 Received 7 paper copies of Amicus brief [18] filed by California Rifle and Pistol Association Foundation. [7883358] (SD)
09/23/2011   23 
2 pg, 17.11 KB
Filed (ECF) notice of appearance of John A. Whitesides for Appellees County of Yolo and Ed Prieto. Date of service: 09/23/2011. [7905302] (JAW)
09/23/2011   24 
63 pg, 1.33 MB
Submitted (ECF) Answering brief for review. Submitted by Appellees County of Yolo and Ed Prieto. Date of service: 09/23/2011. [7905314] (SMS)
09/26/2011   25 Added attorney John A. Whitesides for Ed Prieto County of Yolo, in case 11-16255. [7905523] (JFF)
09/26/2011   26 
1 pg, 79.59 KB
Filed clerk order: The answering brief [24] submitted by County of Yolo and Ed Prieto is filed. Within 7 days of the filing of this order, filer is ordered to file 7 copies of the brief in paper format, with a red cover, accompanied by certification, attached to the end of each copy of the brief, that the brief is identical to the version submitted electronically. [7905959] (RH)
09/28/2011   27 Oral extension by phone of time to file the reply brief for appellants Calguns Foundation, Inc., Adam Richards, Second Amendment Foundation and Brett Stewart is granted. The reply brief is due October 25, 2011. [7908560] [11-16255] (AT)
09/28/2011   28 
1 pg, 49.96 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellants Calguns Foundation, Inc., Adam Richards, Second Amendment Foundation and Brett Stewart Correspondence: Notice of extension of time to file reply brief . Date of service: 09/28/2011 [7908636]–[COURT UPDATE : Edited event and docket text to reflect content of filing. Resent NDA 09/28/2011 by TW] (DK)
09/30/2011   29 
43 pg, 100.39 KB
Submitted (ECF) Amicus brief for review (by government or with consent per FRAP 29(a)). Submitted by Legal Community Against Violence, Major Cities Chiefs Association, Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, and San Francisco District Attorney George Gascon in support of Appellees and Affirmance. Date of service: 09/30/2011. [7911791] (SJF)
09/30/2011   30 
38 pg, 110.11 KB
Submitted (ECF) Amicus brief for review (by government or with consent per FRAP 29(a)). Submitted by Brady Center To Prevent Gun Violence, The International Brotherhood of Police Officers, and The Police Foundation. Date of service: 09/30/2011. [7911817] (NRO)
10/03/2011   31 Received 7 paper copies of Answering brief [24] filed by County of Yolo and Ed Prieto. [7914109] (SD)
10/03/2011   32 Entered appearance of Amici Curiae 1) Legal Community Against Violence, Major Cities Chiefs Association, Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, George Gascon; 2) Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, International Brotherhood of Police Officers and Police Foundation. [7914380] (LA)
10/03/2011   33 
2 pg, 81.6 KB
Filed clerk order: The amicus brief [29] submitted by Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, George Gascon, Legal Community Against Violence and Major Cities Chiefs Association is filed. Within 7 days of the filing of this order, filer is ordered to file 7 copies of the brief in paper format, with a green cover, accompanied by certification, attached to the end of each copy of the brief, that the brief is identical to the version submitted electronically. [7914387] (LA)
10/03/2011   34 
2 pg, 81.81 KB
Filed clerk order: The amicus brief [30] submitted by Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, International Brotherhood of Police Officers and Police Foundation is filed. Within 7 days of the filing of this order, filer is ordered to file 7 copies of the brief in paper format, with a green cover, accompanied by certification, attached to the end of each copy of the brief, that the brief is identical to the version submitted electronically. [7914393] (LA)
10/05/2011   35 Received 7 paper copies of Amicus brief [30] filed by Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, International Brotherhood of Police Officers and Police Foundation. [7917924] (SD)
10/05/2011   36 Received 7 paper copies of Amicus brief [29] filed by Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, et al. [7918669] (SD)
10/25/2011   37 
57 pg, 347.64 KB
Submitted (ECF) Reply brief for review. Submitted by Appellants Calguns Foundation, Inc., Adam Richards, Second Amendment Foundation and Brett Stewart. Date of service: 10/25/2011. [7941750] (AG)
10/26/2011   38 
1 pg, 80.48 KB
Filed clerk order: The reply brief [37] submitted by Appellants is filed. Within 7 days of the filing of this order, filer is ordered to file 7 copies of the brief in paper format, with a gray cover, accompanied by certification, attached to the end of each copy of the brief, that the brief is identical to the version submitted electronically. [7943043] (GV)
10/31/2011   39 Received 7 paper copies of Reply brief [37] filed by Appellants. [7949547] (SD)
12/20/2011   40 
1 pg, 27.96 KB
Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: HL): The court stays proceedings in this appeal pending this court’s en banc decision in Nordyke v. King, No. 07-15763, 2011 WL 5928130 (9th Cir. Nov. 28, 2011) (granting rehearing en banc). [8006418] (WL)
03/08/2012   41 
13 pg, 1.39 MB
Filed (ECF) Appellants Calguns Foundation, Inc., Adam Richards, Second Amendment Foundation and Brett Stewart citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 03/08/2012. [8096744] (AG)
03/08/2012   42 
18 pg, 1.05 MB
Filed (ECF) Appellants Calguns Foundation, Inc., Adam Richards, Second Amendment Foundation and Brett Stewart citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 03/08/2012. [8096745] (AG)
04/13/2012   43 
2 pg, 54.5 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellants Calguns Foundation, Inc., Adam Richards, Second Amendment Foundation and Brett Stewart citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 04/13/2012. [8138855] (AG)
05/25/2012   44 
4 pg, 55.69 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellants Calguns Foundation, Inc., Adam Richards, Second Amendment Foundation and Brett Stewart Motion to hear this case before the panel which will hear case 10-56971. Date of service: 05/25/2012. [8191806] (DK)
06/04/2012   45 
3 pg, 65.62 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellants Calguns Foundation, Inc., Adam Richards, Second Amendment Foundation and Brett Stewart Motion to hear this case before the panel which will hear case 10-56971. Date of service: 06/04/2012. [8200863] (DK)
06/19/2012   46 
1 pg, 23.27 KB
Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: GS): The appellants’ motion to lift the stay of appellate proceedings in No. 11- 16255 is granted. The stay of appellate proceedings is lifted in No. 11-16255. [8220426] [10-56971, 11-16255] (SM)
06/29/2012   47 
1 pg, 23.21 KB
Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: GS): The stay of appellate proceedings has been lifted in No. 11-16255. Pursuant to the June 20, 2011 order, Nos. 10-56971 and 11-16255 shall be calendared before the same panel if practicable. Therefore, the appellant’s request in the June 4, 2012 motion is denied as unnecessary. [8232590] (WL)
09/24/2012   48 
2 pg, 26.41 KB
Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: SM): Pursuant to the Motion for Clarification & Coordination of Appeals in Related Cases filed by Appellants in 10-56971, it is hereby ORDERED that arguments in 10-56971, 11-16255, and 12-16258 will be scheduled to be heard by the same panel on the same day. The date and time of the arguments will be determined in due course by subsequent order. [8335002] [10-56971, 11-16255, 12-16258] (SM)
10/09/2012   49 
10 pg, 449.97 KB
Notice of Oral Argument on Thursday, December 6, 2012 – 9:00 AM – Courtroom 1, 3rd Floor – James R. Browning US Courthouse – San Francisco, CA. Please return ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF HEARING NOTICE form to: SAN FRANCISCO Office. Please open attached documents to view details about your case. [8352268] (RB)
10/09/2012   50 
13 pg, 350.62 KB
Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: HL): These appeals have been assigned to the same panel because they involve issues regarding the Second Amendment. The cases are not consolidated for oral argument. Counsel may wish to confer in order to enhance oral argument. The Clerk shall serve a copy of the court’s service list for each case on all parties. [8353131] [10-56971, 11-16255, 12-16258] (SM)
10/10/2012   51 
1 pg, 72.09 KB
Filed (ECF) Acknowledgment of hearing notice. Location: San Francisco. Filed by Attorney John A. Whitesides, Esquire for Appellees County of Yolo and Ed Prieto. [8355246] (JAW)
10/10/2012   52 
1 pg, 88.23 KB
Filed (ECF) Acknowledgment of hearing notice. Location: San Francisco. Filed by Attorney Mr. Alan Gura for Appellants Adam Richards, Calguns Foundation, Inc., Second Amendment Foundation and Brett Stewart. [8355325] (AG)
10/29/2012   53 
2 pg, 37.8 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellees County of Yolo and Ed Prieto citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 10/29/2012. [8379327] (JAW)
11/26/2012   54 
2 pg, 118.22 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellants Calguns Foundation, Inc., Adam Richards, Second Amendment Foundation and Brett Stewart citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 11/26/2012. [8414874] (AG)
11/28/2012   55 
2 pg, 36.72 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellees County of Yolo and Ed Prieto citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 11/28/2012. [8417871] (JAW)
11/29/2012   56 
1 pg, 26.61 KB
Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: KKW):At oral argument, the parties should be prepared to discuss the significance, if any, of the absence of the State of California in this appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2403; Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.1. [8419107] (KKW)
11/29/2012   57 
6 pg, 320.14 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellants Calguns Foundation, Inc., Adam Richards, Second Amendment Foundation and Brett Stewart citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 11/29/2012. [8420472] (AG)
12/02/2012   58 
2 pg, 118.54 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellants Calguns Foundation, Inc., Adam Richards, Second Amendment Foundation and Brett Stewart citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 11/02/2012. [8422219] (AG)
12/06/2012   59 ARGUED AND SUBMITTED TO DIARMUID F. O’SCANNLAIN, SIDNEY R. THOMAS and CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN. [8428126] (RB)
12/13/2012   60 
2 pg, 115.94 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellants Calguns Foundation, Inc., Adam Richards, Second Amendment Foundation and Brett Stewart citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 12/13/2012. [8437150] (AG)
12/14/2012   61 
2 pg, 39.03 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellees County of Yolo and Ed Prieto citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 12/14/2012. [8440310] (JAW)
04/12/2013   62 
2 pg, 37.39 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellees County of Yolo and Ed Prieto citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 04/12/2013. [8588739] (SMS)
05/29/2013   63 
3 pg, 124.36 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellants Calguns Foundation, Inc., Adam Richards, Second Amendment Foundation and Brett Stewart citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 05/29/2013. [8647037] (AG)
09/16/2013   64 
14 pg, 224.84 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellants Calguns Foundation, Inc., Adam Richards, Second Amendment Foundation and Brett Stewart citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 09/16/2013. [8783733] (AG)
11/13/2013   65 
2 pg, 36.95 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellees County of Yolo and Ed Prieto citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 11/13/2013. [8860851] (JAW)
11/26/2013   66 
3 pg, 133.96 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellants Calguns Foundation, Inc., Adam Richards, Second Amendment Foundation and Brett Stewart citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 11/26/2013. [8879269] (AG)
11/26/2013   67 
3 pg, 126.43 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellants Calguns Foundation, Inc., Adam Richards, Second Amendment Foundation and Brett Stewart citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 11/26/2013. [8879276] (AG)
02/13/2014   68 
3 pg, 116.72 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellants Calguns Foundation, Inc., Adam Richards, Second Amendment Foundation and Brett Stewart citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 02/13/2014. [8977942] (AG)
02/13/2014   69 
2 pg, 36.68 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellees County of Yolo and Ed Prieto Correspondence: Response to Appellants’ Supplemental Authorities. Date of service: 02/13/2014 [8978421] (JAW)
03/05/2014   70 
8 pg, 397.71 KB
FILED MEMORANDUM DISPOSITION (DIARMUID F. O’SCANNLAIN, SIDNEY R. THOMAS and CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN) REVERSED AND REMANDED. FILED AND ENTERED JUDGMENT. [9002499] (PH)
Share