# Five Gun Rights Cases to Watch in CA **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 19, 2014, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-gun-rights-cases-to-watch-in-ca/705089 "2014-11-19T17:08:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2016, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-gun-rights-cases-to-watch-in-ca/705089/81 "2016-06-10T04:37:32Z")
The opinion is poorly reasoned. Ignoring the context of a law and begging the question on whether the overall scheme of restricting carry of any sort is very our reasoning for someone at that level of the legal profession. ---
**Author:** ![thelurkinghorror](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2016, 7:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-gun-rights-cases-to-watch-in-ca/705089/82 "2016-06-10T07:31:47Z")
It was 7-4. The 9th has 29 members, but they often hear cases with 11. Graber, Thomas, McKeown, Pregerson, Fletcher, Paez, and Owens were the 7 it looks like. Callahan, Silverman, Bea, and N.R. Smith dissenting. There was a concurrence and 3 separate dissents. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2016, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-gun-rights-cases-to-watch-in-ca/705089/83 "2016-06-10T15:35:59Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > How can they legally ban both? Any other explicitly protected constitutional rights that California bans? They are engaging in the fiction that this case is actually only about the concealed carry portion of the total ban on carrying and as such they find a ban on concealed carrying permissible because there is no constitutional right to carry your gun concealed. They claim that it is not necessary to rule on the scheme of legislation that effectively bans ALL carrying and they only have to address whether there is a constitutional right to CONCEALED carry. If someone tried that sort of argument here in Great Debates the rest of the board would shit down their throats until they choked but apparently the 9th circuit doesn’t have the same rigorous standards as an anonymous chat board. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2016, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-gun-rights-cases-to-watch-in-ca/705089/84 "2016-06-10T18:39:09Z")
I wonder how this will affect the 4th circuit case. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2016, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-gun-rights-cases-to-watch-in-ca/705089/85 "2016-06-10T18:45:56Z")
The dicta in Heller suggests that state may ban concealed carry, but the plain text of “bearing arms” implies that a state must allow some form of carry. The logic used by this panel is simply unjustifiable. It would be like passing a law against free speech and the once a Plaintiff challenges it, a court picks out something particular to strike down his argument (Oh, well, there is no particular right to speak on a sidewalk, on a bus, on an airplane, in the public square, on the internet, and the question of whether there is a general right to speech is not now before us.) I think the logic of the historical bans on concealed carry was based on the rational (at the time) justification that an honest man carries his gun out in the open for all to see so that any would be attackers have fair warning. Only assassins carry concealed. If that was California’s justification for a concealed carry ban, then it would be defensible, but it bans ALL forms of carry. Did the Plaintiff’s only challenge the “concealed” part? Will it take another Plaintiff to claim that he desires only to carry openly? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2016, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-gun-rights-cases-to-watch-in-ca/705089/86 "2016-06-10T19:34:55Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > The dicta in Heller suggests that state may ban concealed carry, but the plain text of “bearing arms” implies that a state must allow some form of carry. The logic used by this panel is simply unjustifiable. > > It would be like passing a law against free speech and the once a Plaintiff challenges it, a court picks out something particular to strike down his argument (Oh, well, there is no particular right to speak on a sidewalk, on a bus, on an airplane, in the public square, on the internet, and the question of whether there is a general right to speech is not now before us.) > > I think the logic of the historical bans on concealed carry was based on the rational (at the time) justification that an honest man carries his gun out in the open for all to see so that any would be attackers have fair warning. Only assassins carry concealed. > > If that was California’s justification for a concealed carry ban, then it would be defensible, but it bans ALL forms of carry. Did the Plaintiff’s only challenge the “concealed” part? > > Will it take another Plaintiff to claim that he desires only to carry openly? I agree in every respect. Its stupid and intellectually dishonest. While this is not exactly barratry, they are so narrowly construing the case to the point where they are inviting another case with another question rather than simply answering the question they are inviting. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2016, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-gun-rights-cases-to-watch-in-ca/705089/87 "2016-06-10T19:57:28Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > If that was California’s justification for a concealed carry ban, then it would be defensible, but it bans ALL forms of carry. Did the Plaintiff’s only challenge the “concealed” part? Seems like this would be the answer to your question: (from the opinion) "Because Plaintiffs challenge only policies governing concealed carry, we reach only the question whether the Second Amendment protects, in any degree, the ability to carry concealed firearms in public. Based on the overwhelming consensus of historical sources, we conclude that the protection of the Second Amendment — whatever the scope of that protection may be — simply does not extend to the carrying of concealed firearms in public by members of the general public. The Second Amendment may or may not protect, to some degree, a right of a member of the general public to carry firearms in public. But the existence vel non of such a right, and the scope of such a right, are separate from and independent of the question presented here. We hold only that there is no Second Amendment right for members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public." ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2016, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-gun-rights-cases-to-watch-in-ca/705089/88 "2016-06-13T00:13:06Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I agree in every respect. Its stupid and intellectually dishonest. > > While this is not exactly barratry, they are so narrowly construing the case to the point where they are inviting another case with another question rather than simply answering the question they are inviting. The law specifically prohibits open carry, but allows permits for concealed carry “with good cause shown.” There was no way to challenge the permit process in the context of open carry. It seems like if a Plaintiff were to challenge the open carry ban, the Court would rule that the state may regulate open carry because it allows people to apply for a concealed carry license, an issue not now before the Court. I read the opinion, and it turns out that the Plaintiffs did challenge the entirety of the regulation. How should a new Plaintiff challenge the law? This holding would be like holding that laws prohibiting same sex marriage are valid because a gay man can marry a woman just like a straight man, and conversely a straight man is just as prohibited from marrying another man as a gay man is so prohibited. Technically true, but missing the entire issue before the Court, and merely proving a tautology. The dissenting opinions called the majority out for this lazy logic. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2016, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-gun-rights-cases-to-watch-in-ca/705089/89 "2016-06-13T20:23:49Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > The law specifically prohibits open carry, but allows permits for concealed carry “with good cause shown.” There was no way to challenge the permit process in the context of open carry. > > It seems like if a Plaintiff were to challenge the open carry ban, the Court would rule that the state may regulate open carry because it allows people to apply for a concealed carry license, an issue not now before the Court. > > I read the opinion, and it turns out that the Plaintiffs did challenge the entirety of the regulation. How should a new Plaintiff challenge the law? Find a more intellectually honest judiciary. > [@](#): > > This holding would be like holding that laws prohibiting same sex marriage are valid because a gay man can marry a woman just like a straight man, and conversely a straight man is just as prohibited from marrying another man as a gay man is so prohibited. Technically true, but missing the entire issue before the Court, and merely proving a tautology. > > The dissenting opinions called the majority out for this lazy logic. Its like one law making abortions illegal at night and another law making abortions only possible during the daytime with approval (which is never issued). This court cold argue to hold up either law by saying that there is no specific right to have an abortion at a particular time of day. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2016, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-gun-rights-cases-to-watch-in-ca/705089/90 "2016-06-13T20:30:06Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I read the opinion, and it turns out that the Plaintiffs did challenge the entirety of the regulation. How do you get that? It seems to me that the Plaintiffs challenged “only policies governing concealed carry” (quote from the opinion) ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2016, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-gun-rights-cases-to-watch-in-ca/705089/91 "2016-06-13T20:40:25Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > How do you get that? It seems to me that the Plaintiffs challenged “only policies governing concealed carry” (quote from the opinion) From the opinion: [QUOTE=Opinion] Plaintiffs contend that the good cause requirement for concealed carry, as interpreted in the policies of the sheriffs of San Diego and Yolo Counties, violates the Second Amendment. Plaintiffs’ arguments in the two cases differ in some particulars, but they essentially proceed as follows. First, they contend that the Second Amendment guarantees at least some ability of a member of the general public to carry firearms in public. Second, they contend that California’s restrictions on concealed and open carry of firearms, taken together, violate the Amendment. Third, they contend that there would be sufficient opportunity for public carry of firearms to satisfy the Amendment if the good cause requirement for concealed carry, as interpreted by the sheriffs of San Diego and Yolo Counties, were eliminated. Therefore, they contend, the counties’ good cause requirements for concealed carry violate the Amendment. While Plaintiffs base their argument on the entirety of California’s statutory scheme, they allege only that they have sought permits to carry concealed weapons, and they seek relief only against the policies requiring good cause for such permits. Notably, Plaintiffs do not contend that there is a free-standing Second Amendment right to carry concealed firearms. [/QUOTE] The Court admits that in #1 and #2, the Plaintiffs challenge the entirety of the carrying regulation. They ask for #3 as a remedy. The Court could have easily given a different remedy; it is legal gymnastics of the highest order to say that these plaintiffs did not raise the issue. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2016, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-gun-rights-cases-to-watch-in-ca/705089/92 "2016-06-13T22:23:23Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > From the opinion: > The Court admits that in #1 and #2, the Plaintiffs challenge the entirety of the carrying regulation. They ask for #3 as a remedy. The Court could have easily given a different remedy; it is legal gymnastics of the highest order to say that these plaintiffs did not raise the issue. Well, how does what you quoted go with what I quoted (bolding mine): “Because **Plaintiffs challenge only policies governing concealed carry**, we reach only the question whether the Second Amendment protects, in any degree, the ability to carry concealed firearms in public.” I’m not a lawyer, but I thought it was pretty clear, being a lawyerly court opinion and all. So did the Plaintiffs challenge the whole law, or only the law having to do with Concealed Carry? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2016, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-gun-rights-cases-to-watch-in-ca/705089/93 "2016-06-13T22:43:31Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Well, how does what you quoted go with what I quoted (bolding mine): > > “Because **Plaintiffs challenge only policies governing > concealed carry**, we reach only the question whether the > Second Amendment protects, in any degree, the ability to > carry concealed firearms in public.” > > I’m not a lawyer, but I thought it was pretty clear, being a lawyerly court opinion and all. So did the Plaintiffs challenge the whole law, or only the law having to do with Concealed Carry? It seems clear from the opinion itself that the plaintiffs claimed three things: 1. The Second Amendment provides that general members of the public must be allowed to carry in some way outside of the home. 2. California’s scheme of banning open carrying entirely, and having a discretionary concealed permitting process, when taken together, violates #1. 3. We think that if you removed the discretionary part of the permitting process, then that would solve the constitutional issue. It seems as if #3 is merely a proposed solution to the problem and not the plaintiff’s definition of the actual problem, to the exclusion of all others. As **Damuri Ajashi** stated upthread, it would be like if a state had a law banning all abortions at night, but had a discretionary permit system for abortions during the day. Then groups challenge the law on the grounds that abortion is a protected right and rightfully states that the discretionary daytime abortion permits are unconstitutional. Then the court, instead of seeing the forest, holds that there is no particular right to daytime abortions, and since the group didn’t ask for an abortion at night, then the law is a-okay. Seems lazy as hell to me. In many instances courts find for a plaintiff, but grants different or lesser relief than requested. The plaintiffs here propose a solution whereby the discretion is limited. The court could have proposed a different remedy in that California is not required to issue concealed carry licenses, but must restructure its law to allow open carry, or concealed carry, or open and concealed carry, but under the Second Amendment, it must allow something. Or, it could hold that the Second Amendment requires neither. It seems that since it was unable to do this, it did the only dishonest thing it could do to keep California’s near total ban on carrying guns in place: come up with this lazy opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2016, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-gun-rights-cases-to-watch-in-ca/705089/94 "2016-06-13T22:57:29Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > It seems clear from the opinion itself that the plaintiffs claimed three things: > > 1. The Second Amendment provides that general members of the public must be allowed to carry in some way outside of the home. > > 2. California’s scheme of banning open carrying entirely, and having a discretionary concealed permitting process, when taken together, violates #1. > > 3. We think that if you removed the discretionary part of the permitting process, then that would solve the constitutional issue. It seems clear to me that the plaintiffs based their arguments on the whole regulatory process, but they were only seeking to get a concealed weapons permit: > [@](#): > > While Plaintiffs base their argument on the entirety of California’s statutory scheme, they allege only that they have sought permits to carry concealed weapons, and they seek relief only against the policies requiring good cause for such permits. It seems to me that their case was about carrying a concealed weapon, and the fact that is was too difficult to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Maybe if they were seeking the ability to carry a gun, in general, they would have fared better. As I said, I’m not a lawyer, are you? Honestly, because what seems clear to me may not be clear to you, and if you are a lawyer, then I would defer reading of court opinions to someone with law experience. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2016, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-gun-rights-cases-to-watch-in-ca/705089/95 "2016-06-13T23:07:44Z")
When the original Peruta action was taken, it was 2009. This was pre-McDonald and in CA there was essentially no 2nd amendment right because CA does not have a right to arms in its consitution. This means that there was no right to carry. There was statutory process for permitting, so the original challenge was designed specifically to attack discretionary carry policies. Open carry was only allowed in certain areas, and only if unloaded. Throughout the history of the case, unloaded open carry was prohibited by the legislature, and McDonald was decided. Discretionary carry policies were not attacked in and of themselves, this was an as applied challenge. Essentially, the next challenge will have to challenge the carry scheme in CA overall, as applied. Currently for the majority of the population in CA there is no right to carry at all. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2016, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-gun-rights-cases-to-watch-in-ca/705089/96 "2016-06-13T23:13:51Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Discretionary carry policies were not attacked in and of themselves, this was an as applied challenge. Essentially, the next challenge will have to challenge the carry scheme in CA overall, as applied. > > Currently for the majority of the population in CA there is no right to carry at all. I understand about the lack of right to carry at all, I’m not really denying that. Just trying to understand the court case. As I said, it seemed clear to me that it was just about concealed carry, and nothing else. Oversight on their part? Deliberate plan? Changes because of court cases in the intervening years made the case too specialized? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2016, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-gun-rights-cases-to-watch-in-ca/705089/97 "2016-06-13T23:39:20Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > I understand about the lack of right to carry at all, I’m not really denying that. Just trying to understand the court case. As I said, it seemed clear to me that it was just about concealed carry, and nothing else. Oversight on their part? Deliberate plan? Changes because of court cases in the intervening years made the case too specialized? Changes because of court cases in the intervening years was part of it. The original challenge was narrow in scope because CA was not yet ripe to attach the entire carry scheme, IMO. Looking at the history of Peruta, it was actually done somewhat rogue - outside the apparatus of strategic litigation. It got in front of other cases that were filed in a close by time frame because of various procedural maneuvers. It didn’t originally have the NRA’s Chuck Michel as its lawyer for example. Other cases like Richards in Yolo County and Baker in Hawaii were being litigated by the SAF, whereas Peruta took up the action on his own. It was only after that case got advances did various gun groups put more resources into it. At the time, I was on the fence whether Peruta was a mistake. I think it was worthwhile and had a shot. But there were better cases to take forward. In the 9th circuit, the 2nd amendment was briefly incorporated by another case, Nordyke. A few cases were filed in the window where Nordyke was controlling, I believe Peruta and Richards and Baker were in that window. [Richards](http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/COMPLAINT.pdf)was a much cleaner case, had better plaintiffs, and specifically identified that open carry was prohibited. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2016, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-gun-rights-cases-to-watch-in-ca/705089/98 "2016-06-13T23:46:12Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Changes because of court cases in the intervening years was part of it. The original challenge was narrow in scope because CA was not yet ripe to attach the entire carry scheme, IMO. Looking at the history of Peruta, it was actually done somewhat rogue - outside the apparatus of strategic litigation. It got in front of other cases that were filed in a close by time frame because of various procedural maneuvers. It didn’t originally have the NRA’s Chuck Michel as its lawyer for example. Other cases like Richards in Yolo County and Baker in Hawaii were being litigated by the SAF, whereas Peruta took up the action on his own. It was only after that case got advances did various gun groups put more resources into it. > > At the time, I was on the fence whether Peruta was a mistake. I think it was worthwhile and had a shot. But there were better cases to take forward. In the 9th circuit, the 2nd amendment was briefly incorporated by another case, Nordyke. A few cases were filed in the window where Nordyke was controlling, I believe Peruta and Richards and Baker were in that window. [Richards](http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/COMPLAINT.pdf)was a much cleaner case, had better plaintiffs, and specifically identified that open carry was prohibited. That’s a lot of stuff to read and digest, but thanks for the info. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2016, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-gun-rights-cases-to-watch-in-ca/705089/99 "2016-06-27T20:42:07Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Today the 9th circuit issued its en banc decision on case #5, Peruta. Unfortunately it was a loss for plaintiffs as expected. And of course, the above post back in March of last year I was hoping SCOTUS would be unchanged which is also not the case. I expect this will not be appealed. The opinion isn’t posted at the [9th circuit website](https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000722) yet but should be in a day or so. It was heard by 11 justices, the vote was apparently 7-4 (but I can’t tell very easily). So here I thought the case was dead, but I forgot that in the 9th, the default en banc hearing is a limited en banc. A petition can be filed to request the full court re-hear the case. The full court consists of 29 judges and upon successful petition, the case can be reheard in front of the full court. Both [Richards](https://cdn.calgunsfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/225-full-en-banc-petition-filed.pdf)and [Peruta](https://cdn.calgunsfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/334-peruta-en-banc-full.pdf)have requested a rehearing in front of the full court. The [9th circuit has ordered a response to the petitions](https://cdn.calgunsfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/super-en-banc-briefing-order.pdf)to be filed within 21 days. Can this be called a _Super en banc_? In any event, according to the wiki this super en banc has only been requested 5 times ever, and each time has been denied. I would expect this would also be denied and the status quo would continue. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2016, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-gun-rights-cases-to-watch-in-ca/705089/100 "2016-08-17T20:58:57Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > So here I thought the case was dead, but I forgot that in the 9th, the default en banc hearing is a limited en banc. A petition can be filed to request the full court re-hear the case. The full court consists of 29 judges and upon successful petition, the case can be reheard in front of the full court. > > Both [Richards](https://cdn.calgunsfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/225-full-en-banc-petition-filed.pdf)and [Peruta](https://cdn.calgunsfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/334-peruta-en-banc-full.pdf)have requested a rehearing in front of the full court. > > The [9th circuit has ordered a response to the petitions](https://cdn.calgunsfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/super-en-banc-briefing-order.pdf)to be filed within 21 days. Can this be called a _Super en banc_? In any event, according to the wiki this super en banc has only been requested 5 times ever, and each time has been denied. I would expect this would also be denied and the status quo would continue. [Super en banc request denied.](http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2016/08/15/10-56971%20PFR%20EB%20ORDER.pdf)Without an extension request, there is 90 days to petition for cert. I expect them to petition for cert and for cert to be denied. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-gun-rights-cases-to-watch-in-ca/705089.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-gun-rights-cases-to-watch-in-ca/705089.md?page=6)