Ninth Circuit to Reconsider Game-Changing Peruta Decision

By Woody published on in News

On March 26, 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered that Peruta v. San Diego will be re-heard

by an eleven-judge “en banc” panel.  The Court also ordered that the related case of Richards v. Prieto, which was decided under the reasoning outlined in Peruta, will be heard along with the Peruta case. This includes setting aside the original rulings in the cases and stating that they are not to be used as case law. See our previous coverage of Peruta here and here for more background.


Lead plaintiff Edward Peruta is a legal investigator for Connecticut gun-rights attorney Rachel Baird. He’s also an NRA member and a Marine who saw combat in Vietnam. He has authored a pistol-safety instruction course and holds pistol permits in the states of Connecticut and Florida. Photo courtesy of American News and Information Services.

About the rehearing, Edward Peruta told the Shooter’s Log, “This is what I want to say to the people of California and Hawaii and everyone else who lives in the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit: Quote, if this were the morning of Monday, December 8, 1941, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Unquote.”

He explained that on December 8, 1941, the day after the attack on Pearl Harbor, everyone on the West Coast of the United States was looking for Japanese destroyers and aircraft, and that everyone wanted to be armed.

Peruta was brought on behalf of the California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA) Foundation and five individuals who were denied carry licenses by the San Diego Sheriff William D. Gore. In February 2014, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit hearing Peruta resulted in a monumental ruling that held that the San Diego County sheriff’s policy of refusing to issue licenses to carry firearms in public — unless an applicant could demonstrate a special need — was an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment.

After Sheriff Gore decided not to appeal the case further, state Attorney General Kamala Harris and several anti-gun groups filed requests to join the litigation and continue litigating the appeal as parties to the case. The three-judge panel denied each of the intervention requests. In December 2014, AG Harris and the anti-gun-rights groups filed requests for en banc review of the decision to deny them entry into the case.

Also in December 2014, at least one Ninth Circuit judge made a sua sponte (or on the Court’s own accord) request for all Ninth Circuit judges to vote on whether the Peruta case itself should be reheard en banc, regardless of whether AG Harris would be allowed to join the case.

The Court issued an order confirming that a majority of Ninth Circuit judges voted to rehear Peruta. The Court has set oral arguments for June 15, 2015. The Court also ordered that the related case of Richards v. Prieto, which was decided under the reasoning outlined in Peruta, will be heard along with the Peruta case on June 15.

No matter what happens as a result of the rehearing, either side will almost certainly petition a loss to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Here’s a question for gun owners to consider: Why would the Ninth want to rehear Peruta if a majority of the court’s  judges agreed with the initial ruling? Feel free to speculate below.

Tags: , ,

Trackback from your site.

The mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, "The Shooter's Log," is to provide information-not opinions-to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (69)

  • Alan


    My CCW permit application in SJ county will take 12 months. Recently being confined to a wheel chair i lost the ability to retreat let alone defend myself in any confrontational situation.

    I decided i do not need to suffer the idiocy of the CA legislation that panders to illegals, criminals and those who wont work for a living.

    I moving to the USA which is east of the Sierras.

    Sayonara moonbeam and and your snowflake in Sacrapimento.




      Welcome to the real world of America. My wife and I moved out of The Peoples Republic of California 15 years ago this May. We had and still have family members who are radical Progressives and can’t understand why anyone would want to leave the State. One of them is PROUD to pay more and more in taxes!

      Anyway, good luck and I’m sure you’ll find a good place to land.


    • Alan


      Thanks, it looks like TN. Gas prices well below the people’s democracy of mexifornia, CCW costs and issue dates make CA unbelievable.
      People are true Americans an us immigrants (Australian) who entered legally are surely teed off with the current trend to open the floodgates of illegals.

      Sorry moonbeam, you and gavin (lower case intended) will be the cause of the implosion of the state. Read a little of Carl Marx to see a parallel.




    PLEASE Read it all:

    Passed by Congress September 25, 1789. Ratified December 15, 1791. The first 10 amendments form the Bill of Rights. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    (of a person) carry.
    “he was bearing a tray of brimming glasses”
    synonyms: carry, bring, transport, move, convey, take, fetch, deliver, tote, lug
    “I come bearing gifts”
    “walls that cannot bear a stone vault”
    synonyms: support, carry, hold up, prop up
    “will it bear his weight?”

    weapons and ammunition; armaments.
    “they were subjugated by force of arms”
    synonyms: weapons, weaponry, firearms, guns, ordnance, artillery, armaments, munitions, matériel
    “the illegal export of arms”
    distinctive emblems or devices, originally borne on shields in battle and now forming the heraldic insignia of families, corporations, or countries.
    synonyms: crest, emblem, coat of arms, heraldic device, insignia, escutcheon, shield
    “the family arms”

    How can a decision to inhibit a citizen to carry arms not an infringement on the second amendment? This is beyond my understanding. Take this as nothing more than the beginning of the disarmament of the people and the repeal of the second amendment to establish a defenseless society; were the criminals and terrorist will dictate how we should act.
    “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

    I don’t know who is credited with this quotation. Now it does stands to reason that if I can’t defend my self against tyranny from criminals I would not be able to render assistance to law enforcement for fear of retaliation. This is the worst case of oppression that can be brought against the people. We hear how it has worked in Australia and in England but these are two island states that are not bordered by land by any other countries that create a bridge easily crossed with ill intent for our communities.

    I understand that we have been experiencing loss of life in our country because of terrorist acts. This is the new war that we have been dragged into and one that will be with us for a long time. The casualties we are experiencing now are not more than the casualties we have had to endure in the name of freedom. We at this time should stand together and under stand that we as a nation should not surrender our liberties to suppress terrorism because that would be giving into terrorism. Our second amendment is not for sale nor is it on the negotiation table. We love our freedom we love our country and will defend them against hell or high water.

    I will tell on you if I see, hear, or smell you trying to harm my nation. I will because I have the right to bear arms.

    If you take this right away from us I must surrender my nation to the criminals because there will be none protect it. As a nation we are and all ways will be unbeatable, because we love our constitutional freedoms and to surrender any freedom in the name of safety is un-American and weak.

    I for one am neither un-American nor weak and I will protect my constitutional rights tooth and nail.


    • Bruce Frank


      This is the problem. A law that is clearly anti-Constitution is still legal until challenged in court. And in this day, it appears that the court is resistant to grant that you have standing to challenge a law unless you have been charged with a violation of it!


  • Curt


    They are all DEMOCRATS. That’s why the 9th took it upon themselves to give the middle finger the California AG. Then they asked themselves. WWOD (What would Obama do?)


  • Calin Brabandt


    I have ALWAYS criticized the NRA for using the expression, “law abiding citizen.” People are finally waking-up to understand my complaint!


  • Daniel Wisehart


    I have a CCW permit in process in Orange County, California. This morning I heard from the OC Deputy who is handling my case:

    “Good morning, the Peruta v. County of San Diego panel decision has been withdrawn by a decision to rehear the case en banc in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Applicants currently in the process, will be required to articulate their safety concerns and provide supporting documentation in accordance with the Orange County Sheriff’s Department’s (OCSD) Policy 218. Each application will be evaluated individually based on the merits of the applicant’s good cause statement and the totality of their circumstances. Please refer to the attached document checklist for some examples.”

    You can look up Policy 218 on the Internet. Basically it says you need to show cause: transportation of valuable property or cash, victim of a crime, before you can be issued a CCW permit.

    In a couple of years things will probably be a lot better after the full 9th court hears this and, if necessary, it is appealed to the Supreme Court. Then it will apply to courts all over the land, not just to the 9th, if the Supreme Court has to hear it. But for the moment, CCW just became more difficult in California.


  • Winston Smith


    Does that star-spangled banner yet wave o’er the land of the free, and the home of the brave?


Leave a comment

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.

%d bloggers like this: