Kamala Harris uses dirty tactics to get Peruta v. San Diego County reversed

[Subdeacon Joe]

Oh! I am so SHOCKED! MILLER: California attorney general tries to overturn gun carry ruling in 9th Circuit

 

Late Thursday, California State Attorney General Kamala Harris filed a petition on behalf of the state to ask the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to review and reverse its decision in Peruta v. County of San Diego. That ruling two weeks ago said the county’s restrictive concealed carry permit laws that required “good cause” were unconstitutional.

 

This comes just one week after San Diego Sheriff Bill Gore said he would not seek en banc review and would start issuing permits based on self-defense once the appeals court decision was finalized.

 

Ms. Harris wrote in the filing that the state should be allowed to intervene in the case because “this case draws into question the constitutionality of the State’s statutory scheme regulating the public carrying of firearms.” She added that the “existing parties will not adequately represent the State’s interests.”

 

Chuck Michel is the west coast counsel for the National Rifle Association, which funded the lawsuit. He said Ms. Harris‘ motion to intervene was far out of line because her office wasn’t part of the lawsuit, despite repeated requests from both plaintiffs and Sheriff Gore to get involved.

“They are trying to improperly influence the court,” Mr. Michel said in an interview. “The are stretching the rules to file in order to get their arguments in front of the court in the hopes that a liberal judge will get the message and ask for a vote himself.”

Since Sheriff Gore did not ask for review, the only way for a hearing by a larger panel of justices in the 9th Circuit is if one asks to go en banc.

 

Other gun grabbers have joined with the attorney general in this backdoor appeal. The Brady Campaign asked for consent to intervene on Thursday. A police association that was an amicus to the court, but not a party to the lawsuit, also filed an en banc review.

 

“Obviously, what this tells us is the folks that advocate civilian disarmament are upset about the opinion and want to throw everything they can at it to bottle up the 9th Circuit or get it overturned,” said Mr. Michel, whose firm, Michel and Associates, represented the plaintiffs in the Peruta case up to the appeals court level.

 

Thank you NRA for taking on this case. Makes it feel like we have not been abandoned.

[The Original Lumpy Gritz]

Talk about "pok'n the bear". She may have a lesson to learn here.

LG

[The Shoer 27979]

Talk about "pok'n the bear". She may have a lesson to learn here.

LG

I don't think she is smart enough to learn the lesson your talking about

[Virgil Ray Hality, SASS# 37355]

I bet the court can refuse en banc or simply meet behind closed doors when they get to it, and then come out and say the ruling stands as is.

[Chicken Rustler, SASS #26680]

So here's my question. The court said the law in San Diego was not constitutional, she is worried that will lead to them finding state laws unconstitutional. If they take up the review because of concerns about the state laws, does that mean they have to decide whether the state laws are constitutional, and which laws would they have to decide on? And if they even bring up state laws during any review, would that change who could have standing to file suits against the state laws?

[Virgil Ray Hality, SASS# 37355]

IDK, IANAL. Maybe a real lawyer skilled in that area can chime in.