Unappealing
San Diego is not appealing Peruta, et.al v. County of San Diego, which means the case won’t get to SCOTUS. I guess the anti-gun people have learned from Heller. Pity.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
February 23rd, 2014 at 7:24 pm
except it will. Because there’s a circuit split.
February 23rd, 2014 at 7:37 pm
let me clarify. There’s a case where the third circuit said may issue and a ban on open carry is totally okay. That was appealed to SCOTUS.
And now that the ninth has split with the third, theres a much higher probability the supremes will actually look at it.
February 23rd, 2014 at 10:10 pm
The San Diego case was very clean. It had no bad guys or odd location issues.
February 24th, 2014 at 9:56 am
Unc,
I’m surprised you didnt get in a nice poke at P Morgan now that CNN has announced they are dropping his sad show.
February 24th, 2014 at 11:09 am
Apparently the sheriff has decided that he will NOT abide by the 9th Circuit decision because it’s not “final” . He won’t deny the applications but will not approve them either .
February 24th, 2014 at 2:17 pm
He’s dead wrong — since he chooses not to appeal, it’s “final”.
Now he can be sued in his own person for violating civil rights, however. And, once we have a functional Justice Department, he can be brought up on criminal federal charges for the same.
February 24th, 2014 at 3:08 pm
@Geodkyt: I am with you spiritually. However…
When operating under color of law, officials are given immunity from civil action so long as they were not knowingly violating the rights of the people. What that means in practical terms is that in cases where a court must decide the question on “was a right violated”, the violator gets a free pass. He could not have “known” he was violating the constitution until the people who arbitrate these things (federal courts) decided it was covered by the document in the first place.
That said, the city and the department are on the hook for legal fees (including attorney’s fees) for the winner. I assure you Paul Clement is not cheap. It’s going to cost them some cash. But Sheriff Gore is not going to lose his personal bank account over it.
Now, on the second pass…then rights violations are theoretically open to pursuit of the individual involved because they either knew, or should have known, that they were violating rights. I say “theoretical” because finding a court that lets such claims go all the way is pretty rare.
Also, I am not sure that Peruta is yet final. I’d have to look it up, but I think at minimum we have a few more days – more if a judge on the court decides to request an en banc vote sua sponte (all on their own).
Don’t underestimate the level of crazy out there in the 9th.
February 24th, 2014 at 5:46 pm
Patrick —
My point is that, now he cannot claim ignorance of a _future_ federal court decision. Unless the 9th Circuit judges decide sua sponte, to review the case en banc regardless of him not appealing, this is the final decision of teh 9th Circuit.
Then it’s a KNOWING civil rights violation — and qualified immunity won’t apply. The only way he could continue his claim of ignorance of a specific point due to its not having been adequately explored by the courts would be to continue the fight by appealing. Which he has said HE WILL NOT DO — thus, he has declared that, as far as he’s concerned the litigation is over. . . and since he lost DIRECTLY on the issues. . .