The Peruta/Richards Full Court petitions would delay the concealed carry cases in the 9th Circuit from falling like a row of dominoes, or so I thought.
On June 24th,
Nordstron v. Dean (Ventura County) was dismissed with prejudice by district court judge Dolly M. Gee. The same attorney has two more cases in district court teetering on the brink:
Christopher Anderson et al v. John Scott et al and
Birdt v. San Bernardino Sheriffs Department where the attorney, Jon Birdt, had been denied a concealed carry permit for lacking "good moral character." The court has asked the parties to file supplemental briefs which are due on June 30th and then the court will rule on the motions. It doesn't take a crystal ball to predict the outcome of the case. The Nordstrom case also involved a failure to meet the good moral character requirement of the state law. He has one case already on appeal in which the appellant was denied a concealed carry permit for lack of residency,
Sigitas Raulinaitis v. Ventura County Sheriffs Department and another against the City of Torrance and the Los Angeles Sheriff's department. The City of Torrance was dismissed as a defendant because it changed its policy and issued the plaintiff-appellant a concealed carry permit. This, of course, renders the appeal moot even if the en banc Peruta Court had not held that there is no right to carry a weapon concealed in public. Raulinaitis has a second appeal against the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department. Birdt was also denied a CCW by the LASD and LAPD, which is also on appeal. The NRA/CRPA has a concealed carry appeal out of Orange County which is stayed pending the mandate in Peruta.
Michael Vogler v. City of Pasadena et al was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff after the en banc decision in Peruta v. San Diego was published. Vogler is an attorney who recognizes the futility of beating a dead horse. He told me he was going to be filing his own Open Carry lawsuit. I reminded him that I already have one waiting on appeal and the likely outcome of his filing a case is that his would be stayed pending a decision in my
California Open Carry appeal. As of this posting he has not filed a new lawsuit. Neither has the NRA filed its promised Open Carry lawsuit. :lol:
James Rothery, et al. v. County of Sacramento, et al is the oldest concealed carry case on appeal. The parties have filed a joint motion to stay the case for 90 days after the mandate is issued in Peruta v. San Diego.
Rothery, like all of the other California concealed carry cases, did not seek to carry openly in any way. All of the plaintiffs and plaintiff-appellants read the Heller decision and said to themselves "Gosh! The Heller decision said Open Carry is the right guaranteed by the Constitution and that concealed carry is not a right and can therefore be banned. This means I have a right to a concealed carry permit!" :banana: Rothery's attorney has already lost one concealed carry case on appeal, Mehl v. Blanas, nearly three years ago. It escaped being one of the dominoes to fall.
There are two cases out of Hawaii, Baker v. Kealoha and Young v. Hawaii. The first is a preliminary injunction which the attorneys have abandoned. It is stayed pending Peruta and will get kicked back to the district court. The other (Young) is an appeal by a then newly minted lawyer who missed the day in law school where he was told that one of the few things a court cannot do is to compel a legislature to write a new law and his request for relief regarding carrying a handgun in public was so poorly written (I think he got the idea from Gura's Palmer v. DC case) that the court can grant his alternate relief and he would still not be able to carry a handgun in public. The best the Young case can hope for is a remand back to the district court for a do-over.
So what was that? A dozen or so concealed carry cases plummeting to the earth with nothing to look forward to other than crashing and burning.
Leaving my lone, Open Carry case as the last one standing.