11-15-2014, 01:43 PM
Baker hinges on the Peruta ruling.
Peruta stands, en banc filings have no standing.
"SUMMARY*
* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
Civil Rights
The panel denied motions to intervene, which were filed after the panel’s opinion and judgment holding that a responsible, law-abiding citizen has a right under the Second Amendment to carry a firearm in public for self-defense. The State of California and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence moved to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 after San Diego Sheriff William D. Gore declined to file a petition for rehearing en banc. The California Police Chiefs’ Association and the California Peace Officers’ Association, amici in this case, submitted a petition for rehearing en banc. Noting that amici cannot file petitions for rehearing en banc, the panel construed the petition as a motion to intervene.
The panel held that the movants did not meet the heavy burden of demonstrating imperative reasons in favor of intervention on appeal. Noting that the movants sought intervention more than four years after the case began, the panel stated that the stage of the proceedings, the length of the delay, and the reason for the delay all weighed against timeliness. In the absence of a timely motion, intervention was unavailable.
The panel further concluded that 28 U.S.C. § 2403 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.1 did not provide a basis for intervention because the panel’s opinion never drew into question the constitutionality of any California statute, but only questioned San Diego County’s exercise of regulatory authority under the relevant state statutes, specifically the County’s policy that an assertion of self-defense is insufficient to demonstrate “good cause” under the California statutory scheme.
Dissenting, Judge Thomas stated that the majority’s decision to prevent the State of California from intervening in this case conflicted with controlling circuit precedent and deprived one of the parties most affected by the panel’s decision the opportunity to even present an argument on an important constitutional question affecting millions of citizens."
Peruta stands, en banc filings have no standing.
"SUMMARY*
* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
Civil Rights
The panel denied motions to intervene, which were filed after the panel’s opinion and judgment holding that a responsible, law-abiding citizen has a right under the Second Amendment to carry a firearm in public for self-defense. The State of California and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence moved to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 after San Diego Sheriff William D. Gore declined to file a petition for rehearing en banc. The California Police Chiefs’ Association and the California Peace Officers’ Association, amici in this case, submitted a petition for rehearing en banc. Noting that amici cannot file petitions for rehearing en banc, the panel construed the petition as a motion to intervene.
The panel held that the movants did not meet the heavy burden of demonstrating imperative reasons in favor of intervention on appeal. Noting that the movants sought intervention more than four years after the case began, the panel stated that the stage of the proceedings, the length of the delay, and the reason for the delay all weighed against timeliness. In the absence of a timely motion, intervention was unavailable.
The panel further concluded that 28 U.S.C. § 2403 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.1 did not provide a basis for intervention because the panel’s opinion never drew into question the constitutionality of any California statute, but only questioned San Diego County’s exercise of regulatory authority under the relevant state statutes, specifically the County’s policy that an assertion of self-defense is insufficient to demonstrate “good cause” under the California statutory scheme.
Dissenting, Judge Thomas stated that the majority’s decision to prevent the State of California from intervening in this case conflicted with controlling circuit precedent and deprived one of the parties most affected by the panel’s decision the opportunity to even present an argument on an important constitutional question affecting millions of citizens."