I suppose the big news of the day is ...

.
... the bitch slap the 9th Circuit gave California:

In a decision issued earlier today, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the California law conditioning the right of “responsible law-abiding” citizens to carry firearms in public for self-defense purposes on a showing of “good cause” unlawfully restricts Second Amendment rights.
 Couldn't have happened to a more deserving bunch of fuckers.

Michael Z Williamson has more regarding an en banc hearing:

When Hearing or Rehearing En Banc May Be Ordered. A majority of the circuit judges who are in regular active service and who are not disqualified may order that an appeal or other proceeding be heard or reheard by the court of appeals en banc. An en banc hearing or rehearing is not favored and ordinarily will not be ordered unless:
(1)

en banc consideration is necessary to secure or maintain uniformity of the court’s decisions; or
(2)

the proceeding involves a question of exceptional importance.
(b)

Petition for Hearing or Rehearing En Banc. A party may petition for a hearing or rehearing en banc.
(1)

The petition must begin with a statement that either:
(A)

the panel decision conflicts with a decision of the United States Supreme Court or of the court to which the petition is addressed (with citation to the conflicting case or cases) and consideration by the full court is therefore necessary to secure and maintain uniformity of the court’s decisions; or
(B)

the proceeding involves one or more questions of exceptional importance, each of which must be concisely stated; for example, a petition may assert that a proceeding presents a question of exceptional importance if it involves an issue on which the panel decision conflicts with the authoritative decisions of other United States Courts of Appeals that have addressed the issue.

 Scanning over the decision, it appears that the majority took great pains to make their decision en banc-proof, following to a 'T' the reasoning of the Heller and McDonald decisions. IF the 9th hears this case en banc and then reverses, the plaintifs will have cause to appeal because the 9th didn't follow their own rules.

Have your popcorn ready!

pm