Peruta v. County of San Diego and the Corps carry suit

Peruta v. County of San Diego

In the ongoing saga of Peruta v. County of San Diego, another California case into which Ms Harris tried to inject herself, a judge on the Ninth Circuit has called for a vote to determine if the Circuit will hear the case en banc.

Peruta is the case that agreed that the Second Amendment protects a right to be armed outside the home, and that the government may not ban both open and concealed carry of arms. Peruta has already been cited in cases involving Hawaii, the District of Columbia, the Army Corps of Engineers (see below), and the Northern Mariana Islands, and has sparked compliant legislation in Guam.

This is a call for a vote to review the original decision, not to hear the appeal of the denial of the request to intervene by CA Attorney General Kamala Harris. Professor Eugene Volokh, while surprised that this happened with Peruta, notes the reasoning behind this call:

“This sort of ‘sua sponte‘ call for rehearing en banc, even without a petition, is a pretty well-settled procedure, though not one that’s often used. Opinions of three-judge panels in the Ninth Circuit are binding on all future three-judge panels, and can only be reversed by en banc rehearing (or, of course, by the Supreme Court). As a result, even if the parties are content with the result of an opinion, and don’t seek rehearing, each judge has his own interest in the precedents set by his colleagues. Judges are therefore allowed to seek en banc rehearing (which will be granted if a majority of active judges agree to rehear the case), regardless of whether the parties file petitions for such rehearing.”


Corps carry suit

US District Court Judge Harold Murphy ruled in August against David James and, both of whom correctly argue James has the right to carry firearms onto US Army Corps of Engineers-managed land and water at Lake Allatoona, including McKaskey Creek Campground in Cartersville, GA.

James and have appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that Murphy’s ruling that the Corps land is “sensitive,” like a school or government building is erroneous. They want the appeals court to issue a preliminary injunction and allow James to carry firearms onto Corps property.

Ed. note: “Sensitive” does not appear in the Second Amendment, but is a whole cloth fabrication of the courts and should be an inflammatory term in this use.

Don’t miss my next post!

2A News is sent weekly. Unsubscribe anytime.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top