Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

petronius

(26,602 posts)
Sat Apr 19, 2014, 12:42 AM Apr 2014

The Ninth Circuit has posted a site to keep track of Peruta vs. San Diego

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000722

Now that SD has declined to appeal further, both the state of California and the Brady Campaign have requested permission to intervene for the purpose of requesting an en banc review. The panel has stayed the mandate for the purpose of considering those requests, and if one or both of those requests are granted then I guess the whole court would consider whether a full review is justified.

(Just dropping the link in case anyone finds it useful...)
2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Ninth Circuit has posted a site to keep track of Peruta vs. San Diego (Original Post) petronius Apr 2014 OP
Summary of the Ninth Circuit: ManiacJoe Apr 2014 #1
Off-topic, but do other courts provide this service? Eleanors38 Apr 2014 #2

ManiacJoe

(10,136 posts)
1. Summary of the Ninth Circuit:
Sat Apr 19, 2014, 05:43 AM
Apr 2014
The panel reversed the district court’s summary judgment
and held that a responsible, law-abiding citizen has a right
under the Second Amendment to carry a firearm in public for
self-defense.

Plaintiffs challenged a County of San Diego policy which
interpreted California’s restriction on carrying handguns in
public. California generally prohibits the open or concealed
carriage of a handgun, whether loaded or unloaded, in public
locations, absent the showing of, among other things, good
cause. Under San Diego’s policy, concern for one’s personal
safety alone is not considered good cause.

The panel first held that a law-abiding citizen’s ability to
carry a gun outside the home for self-defense fell within the
Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the
purpose of self-defense. Applying the analysis set forth in
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the panel
then held that it did not need to apply a particular standard of
heightened scrutiny to the San Diego policy because the
“good cause” restriction amounted to a destruction of the
Second Amendment right altogether. The panel concluded
that San Diego County’s “good cause” permitting
requirement impermissibly infringed on the Second
Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense.
 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
2. Off-topic, but do other courts provide this service?
Sat Apr 19, 2014, 07:45 AM
Apr 2014

Seems like a good practice for the benefit of the public.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»The Ninth Circuit has pos...