9th. Circuit: California "May Issue" is Unconstitutional

[joshs]

Yes, you're correct. The motion for an en banc review was interpreted as a motion to intervene:

Right, but I think (my fed. civ. pro. isn't so good so this could be wrong) that California could still seek en banc review of the motion to intervene, so the case isn't necessarily over. Again, I'm not sure if that is an appealable order or not.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

How many members of the bar are on P-F.com anyway?

If we achieve critical mass, this could go chain reaction... it would be awesome...

[jetfire]

I have a seat at my local bar...

[Suvorov]

I have a seat at my local bar...

JL Beers?

I'm happy about this decision but I have a feeling that nothing short of the 82nd Airborne landing in Sacramento and enforcing this ruling is going to stop Kamilla from here disruptionist shenanigans.

[RoyGBiv]

In layman's terms, por favor?

Judge said that the people who asked for the en banc hearing had no standing (were not party to) on the case and told them to pound sand.

[Totem Polar]

Thanks for shedding some light on this, RoyGBiv (ha, I always wanted to say that!). I assume all this is good.

[Savage Hands]

Even though I'm renewing my CA CCW again in the next week, I'm extremely pleased with eventually having shall issue in my state. It keeps the power of issuing or not out of the wrong Sheriff's hands.

[jetfire]

JL Beers?

I'm happy about this decision but I have a feeling that nothing short of the 82nd Airborne landing in Sacramento and enforcing this ruling is going to stop Kamilla from here disruptionist shenanigans.

Lucky's, it's right next door.

To the topic at hand, if 10 years ago you'd have told me there would be court mandated Shall-Issue in California, I'd have laughed in your face.

[JDM]

Any updates on this?

[Savage Hands]

Unfortunately, none that I've seen.