[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-500577-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-500577-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","petition-for-panel-rehearing-or-rehearing-en-banc","PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING OR REHEARING EN BANC","","Petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in case No. 20-56174, dated July 25, 2022. The pleading concerns Matthew Jones and others as plaintiffs-appellants versus Rob Bonta and others as defendants-appellees, following an appeal from the Southern District of California. It argues that, after New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, the panel should grant rehearing, vacate its opinion, vacate the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction, and remand for further proceedings.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/petition-for-panel-rehearing-or-rehearing-en-banc/500577/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/petition-for-panel-rehearing-or-rehearing-en-banc/500577.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Hazel","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-22","2026-10-03",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",10,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What is the document’s procedural request to the court?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"It requests that the panel grant the petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc, vacate the panel’s opinion, vacate the district court’s order denying a preliminary injunction, and remand for further proceedings.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"Which court and case number does the petition relate to?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"It is filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in case No. 20-56174, dated July 25, 2022.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"What Supreme Court decision is used to explain the legal standard?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"The petition relies on New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, describing its guidance on applying a standard rooted in the Second Amendment’s text as informed by history.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},500577,1791160666,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,101,106,111,115,120,123,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":97,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":102,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":103,"show_sort_weight":104,"slug":105},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":107,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":108,"show_sort_weight":109,"slug":110},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":112,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":113,"slug":114},8,30,"research-report",{"id":116,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":117,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":119},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":118,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":121,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":122},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":55,"slug":125},"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":131},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":112,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145},137441390410,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/2000252f4ab5702993?_k=1776741390130283984","Case: 20-56174, 07/25/2022, ID: 12501051, DktEntry: 93, Page 1 of 122  \nNo. 20-56174  \nIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT  \nMATTHEW JONES, ET AL.,  \nPlaintiffs-Appellants, V.  \nROB BONTA, ET AL.,  \nDefendants-Appellees.  \nOn Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California  \nNo. 3:19-cv-01226-L-AHG The Honorable M. James Lorenz, Judge  \nPETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING OR REHEARING EN BANC  \nROB BONTA  \nAttorney General of California THOMAS S. PATTERSON  \nSenior Assistant Attorney General MARK R. BECKINGTON  \nSupervising Deputy Attorney General JENNIFER E. ROSENBERG  \nJOHN D. ECHEVERRIA  \nDeputy Attorneys General  \nMICHAEL J. MONGAN Solicitor General JANILL L. RICHARDS  \nPrincipal Deputy Solicitor General SAMUEL P. SIEGEL  \nDeputy Solicitor General  \nCALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102-7004  \n(415) 510-3917  \n[Sam.Siegel@doj.ca.gov](Sam.Siegel@doj.ca.gov)  \nJuly 25, 2022  \nCase: 20-56174, 07/25/2022, ID: 12501051, DktEntry: 93, Page 2 of 122  \nIntroduction and Rule 35 statement ......................................................................... 1  \nStatement ................................................................................................................2  \nReasons for granting the petition.............................................................................6  \nConclusion ............................................................................................................ 16  \nCase: 20-56174, 07/25/2022, ID: 12501051, DktEntry: 93, Page 3 of 122  \nCASES  \nAli v. Gonzales  \n421 F.3d 795 (9th Cir. 2005) ............................................................................ 14  \nAnimal Legal Defense Fund v. Veneman 490 F.3d 725 (9th Cir. 2007) ............................................................................ 15  \nAss’n of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. Bruck__ S. Ct.__, 2022 WL 2347576 (U.S. June 30, 2022)...................................... 14  \nBauer v. Becerra  \n858 F.3d 1216 (9th Cir. 2017) ............................................................................7  \nBianchi v. Frosh  \n__ S. Ct.__, 2022 WL 2347601 (U.S. June 30, 2022)...................................... 14  \nDistrict of Columbia v. Heller 554 U.S. 570 (2008)..................................................................................... 7, 11  \nDuncan v. Bonta  \n__ S. Ct.__, 2022 WL 2347579 (U.S. June 30, 2022)...................................... 14  \nDuncan v. Bonta  \n19 F.4th 1087 (9th Cir. 2021).............................................................................7  \nHeller v. District of Columbia 670 U.S. 1244 (D.C. Cir. 2011)........................................................................ 12  \nLopez v. Garland  \n998 F.3d 851 (9th Cir. 2021) ............................................................................ 15  \nMcDonald v. City of Chicago 561 U.S. 742 (2010)................................................................................. 1, 7, 12  \nNew York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen  \n142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022) ..............................................................................passim  \nCase: 20-56174, 07/25/2022, ID: 12501051, DktEntry: 93, Page 4 of 122  \nPena v. Lindley  \n898 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2018) .......................................................................... 5, 7  \nSilvester v. Harris  \n843 F.3d 816 (9th Cir. 2016) ..............................................................................7  \nUnited States v. Chovan  \n735 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2013) ............................................................................3  \nUniversity of Texas v. Camenish 451 U.S. 390 (1985)......................................................................................... 13  \nWoollard v. Gallagher  \n712 F.3d 865 (4th Cir. 2013) ..............................................................................7 ","cbCaikTkdttjOjZ2","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaikTkdttjOjZ2","pdf",714832,122,"English","# Introduction and Rule 35 statement\n# Statement\n# Reasons for granting the petition\n# Conclusion","[{\"question\":\"What is the document’s procedural request to the court?\",\"answer\":\"It requests that the panel grant the petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc, vacate the panel’s opinion, vacate the district court’s order denying a preliminary injunction, and remand for further proceedings.\"},{\"question\":\"Which court and case number does the petition relate to?\",\"answer\":\"It is filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in case No. 20-56174, dated July 25, 2022.\"},{\"question\":\"What Supreme Court decision is used to explain the legal standard?\",\"answer\":\"The petition relies on New York State Rifle \\u0026 Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, describing its guidance on applying a standard rooted in the Second Amendment’s text as informed by history.\"}]","PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING OR REHEARING EN BANC | PDF",1791013107,307]