Friday, February 21, 2014

San Diego Sheriff's Office Will Not Appeal the Peruta Decision

I just received a copy of the press release sent out by the San Diego Sheriff's Department, acknowledging that they are going shall-issue, and will not appeal the decision.  They did remind everyone that the decision is not yet final.  But without the defendant to appeal the case, what will stop it?

Pretty clearly, they decided that it was safer to not take this to the Supreme Court, which would strike down restrictive concealed carry permit laws across the U.S.

Of course, our side can appeal the decisions in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th circuits!

UPDATE: My mistake.  I knew that the Supreme Court had denied cert in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th circuits.  I just plumb forgot.  There is a 1st Circuit case still working its way up, I think.  In the meantime, the California Attorney-General hyas filed as an intervenor, asking for an en banc review.

5 comments:

Kukulkan said...

"But without the defendant to appeal the case, what will stop it?" Any member of the Ninth Circuit (other than the three judges on the panel that decided Peruta) can call for a vote to take the decision en banc. If any judge requests a vote, than the entire Ninth Circuit votes on whether to rehear the case. If a majority of judges decide to rehear the case, the Peruta decision becomes a nullity. I believe March 6 to be the deadline to decide whether to rehear the decision. We're not out of the woods yet. But we can see the edge of the forest.

David said...

The State Attorney General, who is currently Kamala Harris (a well-established hater of self-defense) also has the right to appeal. This was done recently by the Illinois Attorney General in an attempt to derail advances in Federal Court there.

hga said...

Errr, is Wikipedia wrong about the Supremes denying cert in 2 of the three Circuits you mentioned, including the Maryland case for which you zapped the VPC's Concealed Carry Killers? They've got dates and everything, Kachalsky v. Cacase (New York) denied April 15th, Woollard v. Sheridan (Maryland) denied October 14th, it would be quite a feat of disinformation....

Based on that I thought only Drake v. Filko (New Jersey) was still alive before the stunning Peruta decision (stunning because among other things, by bringing California and Hawaii into the fold it would bring us up to 90% of the population living in shall issue regimes, per the Volokh Conspiracy).

Clayton Cramer said...

No, Wikipedia is right. Those were denied cert. There is a 1st Circuit case coming up.

hga said...

Of course there would be a case in Massachusetts (or Rhode Island, but I gather the former is infinitely worse, lived there a dozen years) ... and that's it! One consequence of winning so much at the state level is that as I look at the map, circuits 5, 6, 8, 10 and 11 are all shall issue, and the 7th's shall issue order to Illinois was not appealed. More importantly they just mailed the first 5,000 licenses (!!!).

I still really wonder if the Supremes want to touch this at all....