PDA

View Full Version : GUN CARRY WIN! 'Peruta v. SD Co. & Sheriff Gore' - Motion to Dismiss DENIED!!!


Liberty1
01-14-2010, 5:24 PM
The motion discusses open carry vs concealed carry and a states ability to determine the method of exercising the "bear" Right.

Motion to dismiss denied:D:
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum12/36583.html

Background:
In 2008 Ed Peruta attempted to apply for a PC 12050 'License to Carry firearm' with the San Diego Co. Sheriff's Office. They denied the application stating he was not a "resident" of the county and his "good cause" was not good.

He filed suit in Federal Court in late 2009. Here is Ed's initial complaint:
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum12/33300.html

I understand Ed has been in communication with some of the "right people" but is entirely funding his own case.

hoffmang
01-14-2010, 5:53 PM
The docket from RECAP is here: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.casd.308678/gov.uscourts.casd.308678.docket.html

Here is the ruling (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.casd.308678/gov.uscourts.casd.308678.7.0.pdf) on the motion to dismiss.

"Good Cause" and residency requirements in 12050 is at least subject to intermediate and possibly strict scrutiny.

This was a copycat case based on borrowing the pleadings in Sykes. This was not recommended but Mr. Peruta has gotten very lucky. This is likely to be a very large win.

-Gene

leelaw
01-14-2010, 5:53 PM
Any potential issues between this case and the others that CGF is persuing?

kf6tac
01-14-2010, 5:55 PM
I'm guessing next up will be a summary judgment motion of some sort followed by the district court placing the case on hold pending the resolution of McDonald?

8-Ball
01-14-2010, 6:05 PM
This is just excellent...

SD Federal Denial...

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/attachment.php?id=9605

RP1911
01-14-2010, 6:12 PM
In all cases, the analysis is informed by the same guiding principle–the right to travel “protects residents of a State from being disadvantaged, or from being treated differently, simply because of the timing of their migration, from other similarly situated residents.” Id. at 904 (citations omitted).

Whenever a state law burdens the right to travel, the court must apply strict scrutiny and ask whether the challenged law is “necessary to further a compelling state interest.” Id. at 904-05 & n.4 (citations omitted); accord Saenz, 526 U.S. at 499 (citing Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 634 (1969)). Accordingly, in the present case, the Court must engage in a two-step analysis: (1) determine whether Defendants’ alleged requirement of full-time residence penalizes certain individuals, such as Plaintiff, with respect to their right to travel; and (2) if it does, Plaintiff “must prevail” unless Defendant can
demonstrate that the requirement is “necessary to accomplish a compelling state interest.” See Soto-Lopez, 476 U.S. at 906 (plurality) (citations omitted); Saenz, 526 U.S. at 499 (citation omitted).

1. Does the requirement of full-time residence “penalize” Plaintiff?
Not all waiting periods and residency conditions are impermissible. Soto-Lopez, 476 U.S. at 903-06 (plurality). Rather, it is important to distinguish between “bona fide residence requirements, which seek to differentiate between residents and nonresidents,” and “residence requirements, such
Case 3:09-cv-02371-IEG-BLM Document 7 Filed 01/14/10 Page 17 of 18 - 09cv2371-IEG (BLM) as durational, fixed date, and fixed point residence requirements, which treat established residents differently based on the time they migrated into the State.” Id. at 903 n.3 (citations omitted).
In the present case, Plaintiff alleges he is being penalized because Defendants’ requirement of full-time residence “actually deters” him from traveling and spending time outside of San Diego. (Pl. Opp., at 15.) It is well-established “that a State may not impose a penalty upon those who exercise
a right guaranteed by the Constitution.” Harman v. Forssenius, 380 U.S. 528, 540 (1965) (citation omitted); accord Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 340-41 (1972). “Constitutional rights would be of little value if they could be ... indirectly denied, or manipulated out of existence.” Harman, 380 U.S.
at 540 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Taking Plaintiff’s allegations as true, it appears the “residency” requirement as applied by Defendants does actually deter individuals such as Plaintiff from exercising their right to travel in that they are being “penalized” for traveling and
spending time outside of San Diego by not being able to obtain a concealed weapon’s permit.

2. Does the requirement of full-time residence pass “strict scrutiny”?
Whenever a state law burdens the right to travel, the court must apply strict scrutiny and ask whether the challenged law is “necessary to further a compelling state interest.” Soto-Lopez, 476 U.S. at 904-05 & n.4 (plurality) (citations omitted); accord Saenz, 526 U.S. at 499 (citing Shapiro, 394 U.S.
at 634). The heavy burden of justification is on the State, and the court will closely scrutinize the challenged law in light of its asserted purposes. Dunn, 405 U.S. at 343. In the present case, Defendant has failed either to identify a “compelling state interest” or to demonstrate that the challenged law is
“necessary” to further that interest. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss as it relates to Plaintiff’s third cause of action for violation of his right to travel.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, because Plaintiff’s complaint alleges sufficient facts to state claims for relief that are plausible on their face, the Court DENIES the Motion to Dismiss in its entirety.

If this analysis holds up, wouldn't this mean that an out of state CCW will be legal in California?

wildhawker
01-14-2010, 6:18 PM
This is a huge win. I'm quite enjoying the order.

hoffmang
01-14-2010, 6:19 PM
Any potential issues between this case and the others that CGF is persuing?

It's a mixed bag. This was the courts comment on incorporation:

Because Heller involved a challenge to a District of Columbia statute, the Supreme Court there did not have to decide whether the Second Amendment also applied to the states. See id. at 2812- 13. No party has raised this issue in the present case either. Accordingly, because it appears that both parties agree that the Second Amendment applies in this case, the Court will proceed on that assumption, without deciding the issue at this time. The Court does note, however, that it is aware of the pre-Heller Ninth Circuit case law on this issue, as well as the post-Heller trend. Compare Fresno Rifle & Pistol Club, Inc., 965 F.2d 723, 731 (9th Cir. 1992) (concluding that until such time as United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876), and Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), are overturned, “the Second Amendment limits only federal action”) with Nordyke v. King, 563 F.3d 439, 457 (9th Cir. 2009), reh’g en banc granted, 575 F.3d 890 (concluding that “the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments”). It should also be noted that after rehearing Nordyke en banc, the Ninth Circuit vacated its submission of the case pending the Supreme Court’s disposition of Maloney v. Rice, 08- 1592; McDonald v. City of Chicago, No. 08-1521; and N.R.A. v. City of Chicago, No. 08-1497.

Sykes's motions are on hold due to the objection to incorporation Sac/Yolo made. No idea if San Deigo will now make that motion now or not.

This will help Palmer in DC on January 22 as it is a specific endorsement of Alan Gura's positions in both Sykes and Palmer (as the pleadings were largely copied from Sykes.)

-Gene

kf6tac
01-14-2010, 6:20 PM
Odd that San Diego didn't even bother to raise the incorporation question -- asleep at the wheel?

Liberty1
01-14-2010, 6:23 PM
It seems like Judge Irma Gonzalez is assuming incorporation?? and just moving things along?? This puts her front and center in defining these 2nd A. issues for the 9th.

just saw Gene's post...

Gray Peterson
01-14-2010, 6:37 PM
It seems like Judge Irma Gonzalez is assuming incorporation?? and just moving things along?? This puts her front and center in defining these 2nd A. issues for the 9th.

just saw Gene's post...

San Diego didn't argue against incorporation. Judges generally judge based on the pleadings.

Liberty1
01-14-2010, 6:41 PM
San Diego didn't argue against incorporation. Judges generally judge based on the pleadings.

Maybe their attorneys are closet Calguners? or they are just about to get "Leftwitched" for their mis-pleadings :eek:

CCWFacts
01-14-2010, 7:38 PM
Wow, that's cool. I'm assuming it that SD had a "senior moment" and forgot to mention the Nordyke situation (stayed / vacated pending McDonald).

If nothing else, this is going to make every other dept in this state pause and take a breath before they sign their next denial letter.

Compare this with the Santa Maria federal case, where there was obvious misconduct, include flat-out illegal activity, and the plaintiff is someone who more obvious "good cause" than any of the other people with CCWs issued by SMPD, and the case still ended up getting dismissed.

(I recognize that luck is a bit of a factor in both these outcomes.)

wildhawker
01-14-2010, 7:40 PM
The Judge noted in the ruling Nordyke's vacated opinion and disposition; she made it clear that while 2A was not incorporated as against the states both parties are proceeding as if it was.

wildhawker
01-14-2010, 7:45 PM
After reading the thread at OCDO it seems that Mr. Peruta should blow some public kisses towards Gura/SAF/CGF...

rabagley
01-14-2010, 8:34 PM
This part got me thinking:

... it is important to distinguish between “bona fide residence requirements, which seek to differentiate between residents and nonresidents,” and “residence requirements, such as durational, fixed date, and fixed point residence requirements, which treat established residents
differently based on the time they migrated into the State.” (pp 17,18)

Could this argument be part of the challenge against the high-cap magazine law? Basically, established residents who owned high-cap magazines are treated different from those of us who moved in after the ban.

No?

pullnshoot25
01-14-2010, 9:24 PM
I saw this earlier on OCDO.

If Peruta doesn't blow any kisses to CGF or Gura... ;)

CCWFacts
01-14-2010, 10:19 PM
I think Mr. Peruta got very lucky to get a judge who is already on board with the "it's a fundamental right" concept.

My question now is, what's next?

Will SD really want to blow some relatively large amount of money to take this to trial, and potentially lose, and therefore go shall-issue and have to pay Mr. Peruta's legal fees? Or will they just issue him his permit, which I guess would make the whole case go away?

Also I have a feeling there may be a flurry of applications in SD in the immediate future. I hope SD has printed up enough applications.

swhatb
01-14-2010, 10:27 PM
Cool :D

hoffmang
01-14-2010, 10:31 PM
Or will they just issue him his permit, which I guess would make the whole case go away?

I worry some about that outcome. It's partially why there are institutional plaintiffs in Sykes.

-Gene

Gray Peterson
01-14-2010, 11:34 PM
I worry some about that outcome. It's partially why there are institutional plaintiffs in Sykes.

-Gene

Which is why, if Ed values the gun rights movement, he would, if offered, ask for a stipulated consent order ordering A) Shall-issue for everyone not otherwise prohibited from possessing firearms and B) no further residency restrictions. That way everyone wins.

Purple K
01-14-2010, 11:50 PM
I hope the right people are asking

tango-52
01-15-2010, 5:28 AM
Which is why, if Ed values the gun rights movement, he would, if offered, ask for a stipulated consent order ordering A) Shall-issue for everyone not otherwise prohibited from possessing firearms and B) no further residency restrictions. That way everyone wins.

And if he got that, then everyone who wants a CA CCW could apply in SD and get one. That would be sweet! It would also mean hiring a few more clerks to process paper work, and handle the revenue coming in to the department. Somehow, I don't see the Hero of Ruby Ridge (appointed Sheriff Gore) being in favor of this outcome. :D

Glock619
01-15-2010, 5:47 AM
Is there anything I can do to help?

Untamed1972
01-15-2010, 8:47 AM
So wouldn't many of the findings made by the judge in that denial pretty much indicate what the final decision is likely to be?

dustoff31
01-15-2010, 9:36 AM
So wouldn't many of the findings made by the judge in that denial pretty much indicate what the final decision is likely to be?

Pretty encouraging I would say. But as the judge indicated, all she was saying is that the plaintiff appeared to have valid claims, and that SDSO didn't make their case as to why it should not be heard.

hamster
01-15-2010, 9:58 AM
Where do I get my application? Time to check out CalCCW, I have that site booked marked somewhere....

GrizzlyGuy
01-15-2010, 10:11 AM
So wouldn't many of the findings made by the judge in that denial pretty much indicate what the final decision is likely to be?

I think so. Although they approach the current motion-to-dismiss issue by looking at it in the best possible light for the plaintiff (see the Legal Standard section on pg. 3), they also said that although strict scrutiny should really apply on Peruta's key claims, the defendant (SD county/sheriff) wasn't even making arguments that passed the easier standard of intermediate scrutiny.

So, unless the defendant can substantially improve their arguments, or Ed's facts are just plain wrong, I'd say it is looking really-really good for Ed (and all of us) in terms of what the final decision might be. :)

Theseus
01-15-2010, 10:32 AM
As I posted on OCDO:

The issue in this case seems to be leading in only one of two directions. 1. California can be may issue with CCW as long as they allow unlicensed loaded open carry, or 2. California must issue CCW permits.

And:

If my understanding is correct, the judge also indicates that a person visiting from out-of-state still has the right to carry for the purposed of self-defense.

If this is the case there can only be so many possibilities.

1. California must accept out-of-state permits as valid and/or;
2. Non-resident concealed carry license permitted in a timely fashion (on-demand) or;
3. California can't ban unlicensed loaded open carry


because if none of the three above options existed then non-resident guests would not have a legal manner by witch to carry for the purpose of self-defense.

I could be wrong, but this is my understanding.

RP1911
01-15-2010, 10:35 AM
^^Theseus

I read it the same way. Look at my prior post where I ask a question about out of state CCWs being valid in CA.

Glock22Fan
01-15-2010, 10:41 AM
Before chickens are counted, TBJ had some very favorable rulings from the judge in Santa Maria. Then they switched judges on us and it went to h*** in a handbasket.

1JimMarch
01-15-2010, 12:16 PM
Well I get to say "I told you so" regarding California's inability to discriminate against out-of-staters.

I'm in Tucson (permanent resident) and pack daily on my AZ CCW. This decision says that if I enter Cali packing concealed in possession of my AZ CCW card, in order to bust me they have to find a STRICT SCRUTINY-CAPABLE reason to disrespect my AZ CCW while banning me by statute from access to a Cali CCW.

And that's impossible, given how prevalent reciprocity between the various states is on CCW permit handling. If at least 3/4ths of the states have some reciprocity, Cali's total lack can't hold.

The last time I ended Cali on a day trip I packed. I guarantee you I will the next time as well.

One case that's missing as a citation is Ward v. Maryland, 1870. That's the case that bans cross-border discrimination of this sort under the 14th Amendment P&I clause. In 1872 the Slaughter-house decision backed the logic in Ward and then said that such cross-border issues are ALL that the P&I clause means.

Mr. Ward was a merchant from New Jersey who wanted to sell horse'n'buggy gear in MD. MD had an extra tax on out-of-state visiting merchants. Ward refused to pay it, went to Federal court to block the discrimination. The Supremes said that such cross-border discrimination violated his federally recognized right to travel and right to engage in commerce.

The logic is very similar to Saenz v. Roe in 1999, and surprisingly Saenz doesn't mention Ward. Ward is kind of a "forgotten case". I just left a message with Peruta's attorney suggesting he read it, because it's clear from the judge's comments that he has no clue regarding Ward.

Purple K
01-15-2010, 12:20 PM
It sounds like my out-of-state non-resident CCW's may allow me to CCW in California? Comments?

ke6guj
01-15-2010, 12:26 PM
I'm in Tucson (permanent resident) and pack daily on my AZ CCW. This decision says that if I enter Cali packing concealed in possession of my AZ CCW card, in order to bust me they have to find a STRICT SCRUTINY-CAPABLE reason to disrespect my AZ CCW while banning me by statute from access to a Cali CCW.

It sounds like my out-of-state non-resident CCW's may allow me to CCW in California? Comments?Does a mere ruling on a "motion to dismiss" give you guys the precidence that you think it does? I would think that it doesn't apply until it is a ruling on the final disposition of the case.

GuyW
01-15-2010, 12:31 PM
I don't see the Hero of Ruby Ridge (appointed Sheriff Gore) being in favor of this outcome. :D

Oh - I like that!

Maybe we can embellish it a bit (at the risk of invoking a corollary to Godwin's Law):

How did the Russkies do it?

The Fatherland's Most Glorious Hero of Ruby Ridge??

Lenin's Star Hero of Ruby Ridge??

.

dustoff31
01-15-2010, 12:34 PM
It sounds like my out-of-state non-resident CCW's may allow me to CCW in California? Comments?

I don't think so. AZ does not recognize out of state CCWs issued to AZ residents. Now, if you were not a CA resident, then maybe.

But as ke6guj points out, I'm not sure we are there yet.

Untamed1972
01-15-2010, 12:36 PM
It sounds like my out-of-state non-resident CCW's may allow me to CCW in California? Comments?


I think generally most states require residents of their state to have a permit from that state. But as long as it's shall issue then it's generally not an issue.

CSDGuy
01-15-2010, 12:42 PM
While this is a HUGE step in the "right direction"... I don't see this case yet having any real precedential value and it's not yet binding. It's just that the Motion to Dismiss was denied.

The trial ought to be interesting...

1JimMarch
01-15-2010, 12:47 PM
Yeah, I don't think this "cross border discrimination ban" will help you if you're a *Cali* resident with an AZ (or any other) state CCW.

It helps me as an AZ resident packing in Cali on an AZ CCW. And it helps Mr. Peruta because he's being discriminated against as a part-time Conn. resident.

ke6guj: it does when the US Supreme Court has said THE SAME DAMN THING all the way back in 1870:

http://supreme.justia.com/us/79/418/case.html

States cannot discriminate against visiting residents of other states on the handling of a Federally recognized civil right. Since Heller, "bearing arms" has been so recognized. In order for Cali to discriminate against visitors, they need an argument for doing so that can withstand strict scrutiny review.

They don't have one.

1JimMarch
01-15-2010, 12:48 PM
The trial ought to be interesting...

Trial hell, *discovery* will be a hoot and a half...

GuyW
01-15-2010, 1:07 PM
Trial hell, *discovery* will be a hoot and a half...

Edit: Peruta will accept some legal assistance....

BTW, the Judge ought to review the Overturf case regarding having vs carrying (footnote 13 page 12), and perhaps change one of her conclusions....
.

GuyW
01-15-2010, 1:31 PM
Or will they just issue him his permit, which I guess would make the whole case go away?


He says he's in it for the cause....

And making this case go away, wouldn't stop the 5-10 copycat cases that will be filed...
.

1JimMarch
01-15-2010, 1:42 PM
Right, but San Diego has to be asking themselves how much outright corruption will discovery entail? Do they have the guts to risk that being dug into? Remember, SD's policy for years has been "business owners only" more or less...even without *trying* to milk the process for campaign finance, there'll be a metric buttload of cross-correlation between "permit holder" and "campaign donor"...and some hideous statistical race/gender imbalances.

If on the other hand they TRIED to the same degree Contra Costa or Sacramento has...it could be beyond merely "ugly"...it could be enough to attract the FBI. Who are likely still pissed off about that crony permitholder in San Joaquin County who shot at FBI agents when they went to arrest him. Or the lunacy Carona pulled selling permits to the friggin' mafia.

IF you're a tactician with, say, LCAV, and you think the Peruta case is a loser anyways, maybe you don't want this dug up and you advice the SD county lawyers along those lines...

stag1500
01-15-2010, 2:52 PM
It helps me as an AZ resident packing in Cali on an AZ CCW. And it helps Mr. Peruta because he's being discriminated against as a part-time Conn. resident.


Does this help us with Nevada CCWs to pack in states like New York, New Jersey, Hawaii, etc...?

1JimMarch
01-15-2010, 3:08 PM
Does this help us with Nevada CCWs to pack in states like New York, New Jersey, Hawaii, etc...?

It depends: does that state per statute discriminate against visitors from other states?

Cali does for sure: a Cali resident has access (at least theoretically) to CCW while visitors don't.

If however the state has permit availability (at least "on paper") for visitors then at a minimum it would be harder. Hawaii on paper treats in-state residents and visitors the same. To win on this basis, you'd have to prove that there was a local policy on the part of issuing agencies to screw over visitors. (The reality is, Hawaii screws *everybody* so that's a "wait until McDonald and incorporation" thing.)

I *think* New York is open the same way (and I think, even worse overall!) as Cali. The question is, can a visitor to New York get an NY permit? And if so, is it any more difficult, expensive or time-consuming to do so? And what's the situation with NYC rules? I haven't dug into it yet.

California is one of the most open-and-shut examples, but I'm sure there's at least some others, esp. back east (NJ? NY? MA?).

Sidenote: at one point I explored the subject of "what would happen if the Pima County AZ sheriff where I live submitted a California CCW app on my behalf to the California DOJ?". Turns out that won't work. In the Cali government code somewhere it specifies that wherever Cali law (penal code or whatever) says "county" or "city", those are to be read as CALIFORNIA county or city - not one in another state. So PC12050 has to be read as a total ban on CCW issuance to non-Cali people, period, end of discussion.

I'm told somebody may have made Jerry Brown's office aware of this problem. Maybe.

GrizzlyGuy
01-15-2010, 3:49 PM
If this is the case there can only be so many possibilities.

1. California must accept out-of-state permits as valid and/or;
2. Non-resident concealed carry license permitted in a timely fashion (on-demand) or;
3. California can't ban unlicensed loaded open carry


because if none of the three above options existed then non-resident guests would not have a legal manner by witch to carry for the purpose of self-defense.

I could be wrong, but this is my understanding.

I basically agree, I started my reasoning here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3644401&postcount=80) and ended up in a slightly different (even better?) place here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=3645384#post3645384).

Theseus
01-15-2010, 3:58 PM
Also, although not clear, this judge seems to believe that you can only license/restrict one form if the other in unlicensed.

1JimMarch
01-15-2010, 4:15 PM
Right, and that would be how they would reconcile charging for a basic civil right (access to CCW permits): you don't HAVE to pay to pack if open carry unlicensed is legal.

Which means a lot of shall-issue states that either ban open carry (Texas!) or allow open carry only if you have a CCW license (Georgia and others) are going to have to change their ways.

navyinrwanda
01-15-2010, 5:15 PM
If this is the case there can only be so many possibilities.

1. California must accept out-of-state permits as valid and/or;
2. Non-resident concealed carry license permitted in a timely fashion (on-demand) or;
3. California can't ban unlicensed loaded open carry

I didn't see anything in the judge's order — implied or explicit — that spoke to the conditions of open carry.

But it's nonetheless a very welcome development, even though this case is still at a very early stage.

Theseus
01-15-2010, 5:29 PM
I didn't see anything in the judge's order — implied or explicit — that spoke to the conditions of open carry.

But it's nonetheless a very welcome development, even though this case is still at a very early stage.


Page 8.:
(“We are of the opinion, then, that so far as the act of 1837 seeks to suppress the practice of carrying certain weapons secretly, that it is valid, inasmuch as it does not deprive the citizen of his natural right of self-defence, or of his constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But that so much of it, as contains a prohibition against bearing arms openly, is in conflict with the Constitution, and void . . . .”The applicability of these cases is questionable where, as here, the State expressly prohibits individuals such as Plaintiff from openly carrying a loaded firearm in public places. See CAL. PENAL CODE § 12031(a)(1).7In my assessments though, it was more about the rights of non-residents. The judge is noticing they have a right, and that without loaded open carry, or some way for them to get a license they would be deprived the right to keep and bear arms. This indicates that if she were to rule, it would be likely that unless the State of California unbanned all loaded open carry, they would have to create a non-resident license that is easily obtained by non-residents, and/or respect other states CCW's.

1JimMarch
01-15-2010, 5:36 PM
>>I didn't see anything in the judge's order — implied or explicit — that spoke to the conditions of open carry.<<

Then you didn't look hard enough.

OK. Go back to Heller. Look at footnote #9, which favorably cites half a dozen or so state court cases that ALL say the same thing: "concealed carry can be restricted so long as open carry is OK". The Nunn case was one the judge in Ed Peruta's case cited, and is in that Heller footnote.

This same logic was applied as late as 2003 in the Ohio Klein case at the Ohio Supremes. Gunnies were suing for concealed carry access, they "lost" but in the decision "against" them, the Ohio Supremes noted that the reason the concealed carry ban is constitutional (under the Ohio RKBA clause) is that "everybody knows open carry is illegal". Which caused the various "law enforcement" agencies that had been busting people for "disturbing the peace" to all go "oh $#i+" and led to mobs of happily armed gunnies going round and round the various capitol buildings until they annoyed 'em into passing a CCW law :D.

Funniest political action in recent memory, come to think...

navyinrwanda
01-15-2010, 5:42 PM
I don't see anything in Nunn v. State (a rather famous 1846 case from Georgia) that bans all regulation of open carry.


ETA:“We do not desire to be understood as maintaining, that in regulating the manner of bearing arms, the authority of the Legislature has no other limit than its own discretion. A statute which, under the pretence of regulating, amounts to a destruction of the right, or which requires arms to be so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose of defence, would be clearly unconstitutional. But a law which is intended merely to promote personal security, and to put down lawless aggression and violence, and to that end inhibits the wearing of certain weapons, in such a manner as is calculated to exert an unhappy influence upon the moral feelings of the wearer, by making him less regardful of the personal security of others, does not come in collision with the constitution.”

Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846), quoting State v. Reid, 1 Ala. 612, 35 Am. Dec. 44 (1840).

Gray Peterson
01-15-2010, 6:02 PM
You're reading it in the context of modern american language, which you can't do for a pre-Civil War case. They talk of carrying pistols "secretly", not concealed.

Theseus
01-15-2010, 6:06 PM
Right, and that would be how they would reconcile charging for a basic civil right (access to CCW permits): you don't HAVE to pay to pack if open carry unlicensed is legal.

Which means a lot of shall-issue states that either ban open carry (Texas!) or allow open carry only if you have a CCW license (Georgia and others) are going to have to change their ways.

My understanding is that Texas is already pretty close to approving open carry. There was a bill in their legislature last year that, IIRC, almost passed.

navyinrwanda
01-15-2010, 6:14 PM
>>I didn't see anything in the judge's order — implied or explicit — that spoke to the conditions of open carry.<<

Then you didn't look hard enough.

OK. Go back to Heller. Look at footnote #9, which favorably cites half a dozen or so state court cases that ALL say the same thing: "concealed carry can be restricted so long as open carry is OK". The Nunn case was one the judge in Ed Peruta's case cited, and is in that Heller footnote.

This same logic was applied as late as 2003 in the Ohio Klein case at the Ohio Supremes. Gunnies were suing for concealed carry access, they "lost" but in the decision "against" them, the Ohio Supremes noted that the reason the concealed carry ban is constitutional (under the Ohio RKBA clause) is that "everybody knows open carry is illegal". Which caused the various "law enforcement" agencies that had been busting people for "disturbing the peace" to all go "oh $#i+" and led to mobs of happily armed gunnies going round and round the various capitol buildings until they annoyed 'em into passing a CCW law :D.

Funniest political action in recent memory, come to think...
"Restricted" as you use it means banned. It doesn't mean without any regulation whatsoever.

GuyW
01-15-2010, 7:02 PM
.....the Ohio Supremes noted that the reason the concealed carry ban is constitutional (under the Ohio RKBA clause) is that "everybody knows open carry is illegal". Which caused the various "law enforcement" agencies that had been busting people for "disturbing the peace" to all go "oh $#i+" and led to mobs of happily armed gunnies going round and round the various capitol buildings until they annoyed 'em into passing a CCW law :D.


Jim: you meant, "everybody knows open carry is LEGAL", yes?

.

1JimMarch
01-15-2010, 7:14 PM
YES. I sure did. Dammit...dumb typo. Sorry. I was finishing up that last just after my landlady called me in a croaking voice asking me to go get her some cold meds, so I was in a rush :(. Dayum. Yeah, the Supremes in Klein said open carry was LEGAL.

Sigh.

Edward Peruta
01-15-2010, 7:37 PM
ooo

wildhawker
01-15-2010, 7:48 PM
Ed, what an odd first post here on the subject.

Purple K
01-15-2010, 7:53 PM
Ed, I don't yet know you, but I like your style.

curtisfong
01-15-2010, 8:08 PM
Ed, don't worry, brother, we are on your side.

Edward Peruta
01-15-2010, 8:15 PM
000

Snaps
01-15-2010, 8:41 PM
Congrats on the win and keep up the good fight.

CenterX
01-15-2010, 8:47 PM
Hey Ed,
Congrats!
Keep the faith.
Peace be with you.

1JimMarch
01-15-2010, 8:50 PM
Sykes had no issue regarding cross-border discrimination ("right to travel").

I've been talking about the implications of the Saenz and Ward cases for a while now. It was a complete surprise today to find that not only had somebody used similar arguments in court, but WON on them. That's huge :).

As I said on the opencarry forum, what Ed has now is a discovery vehicle *lacking* in the Sykes case. We absolutely should support Ed's case to the hilt for two reasons:

1) If the US Supremes incorporate the 2nd in the McDonald case and yet Sacramento County (in Sykes) and San Diego county (in Ed's case) DO NOT cave in immediately, we'll be further ahead.

2) If they do cave in (I'd call it 50/50 odds?) post-incorporation, then we'll still have valuable PR material from Ed's case that we wouldn't otherwise have.

Ed: EMail me your phone number to 1.jim.march@gmail.com - we have a lot to talk about over the weekend. I have some details you're likely not aware of, including a statewide conspiracy to hide "good cause" details running right up to the California DOJ.

hoffmang
01-15-2010, 9:38 PM
Sykes had no issue regarding cross-border discrimination ("right to travel").


Sykes has a right to travel claim in it that was directly duplicated into Mr. Peruta's complaint. It was framed on very slightly different facts, but it is no different as a matter of law.

-Gene

mblat
01-15-2010, 10:02 PM
Sykes has a right to travel claim in it that was directly duplicated into Mr. Peruta's complaint. It was framed on very slightly different facts, but it is no different as a matter of law.

-Gene

Gene, explain this to me - is it considered bad form for the lawyer to use somebody else OPEN research?
Since our entire system based on precedent such actions seem inevitable..... So why are we concentrating if Sykes was used or not?

hoffmang
01-15-2010, 10:06 PM
Gene, explain this to me - is it considered bad form for the lawyer to use somebody else OPEN research?
Since our entire system based on precedent such actions seem inevitable..... So why are we concentrating if Sykes was used or not?

To win carry, one needs the ability to go all the way. However, using tools that one isn't trained for can be dangerous.

Would you rather have Alan Gura arguing carry in the Supreme Court or an attorney who has never argued in a federal appellate court before?

Taking someone elses work isn't illegal in the legal filing context, but it is certainly uncool.

-Gene

Theseus
01-15-2010, 10:14 PM
To win carry, one needs the ability to go all the way. However, using tools that one isn't trained for can be dangerous.

Would you rather have Alan Gura arguing carry in the Supreme Court or an attorney who has never argued in a federal appellate court before?

Taking someone elses work isn't illegal in the legal filing context, but it is certainly uncool.

-Gene

In Edwards defense he never expected this case to have ramifications beyond just himself. He wasn't doing this to win the right for all Californians. At least that was my understanding of it. I don't know if that makes it worst or not.

hoffmang
01-15-2010, 10:16 PM
In Edwards defense he never expected this case to have ramifications beyond just himself. He wasn't doing this to win the right for all Californians. At least that was my understanding of it. I don't know if that makes it worst or not.

Why do you say that?

-Gene

Theseus
01-15-2010, 10:32 PM
If I recall correctly in the post on open carry before he filed the case I believe I recall him mentioning his motive. He just wanted his permit.

CCWFacts
01-15-2010, 10:51 PM
Before chickens are counted, TBJ had some very favorable rulings from the judge in Santa Maria. Then they switched judges on us and it went to h*** in a handbasket.

One thing I've wondered about that case - why didn't TBJ explore the unseemly overlap between Santa Maria Police Council donors and CCW applications that were approved even though there was no good cause? Ie, a dentist without the slightest documentation of danger or threats or risks somehow has good cause, and oh yeah, happens to be on the Police Council? It wasn't even mentioned in the complaint, and yet it could have been another layer of misconduct, heaped on top of all the other layers of Nigerian-style local politics practiced in beautiful Santa Maria? IANAL so I could be missing something on that...

Anyway, yeah, obviously, there can be a big luck factor in which judge you get, and Mr. Peruta won the lucky card and Mr. McCloud didn't.

Full Clip
01-15-2010, 11:26 PM
Very interesting thread.
CCW in CA...perhaps in my lifetime...

press1280
01-16-2010, 4:53 AM
Does this help us with Nevada CCWs to pack in states like New York, New Jersey, Hawaii, etc...?

Someday maybe, don't do it now though........NY and Hawaii more likely since they don't honor out-of-state permits, won't issue to non-residents(although it seems implied someone working in NY may be able to get an exemption) and are "may issue" like CA. NJ and MD on the other hand, do *technically* allow a non-resident to obtain a permit but the good cause/justifiable need trips up everyone except the well connected/security personnel.
This case addresses both.

I'm wondering how this case fits on the timeline. Would this case be ahead of Palmer/Sykes in terms of getting to SCOTUS?

press1280
01-16-2010, 5:00 AM
Sykes had no issue regarding cross-border discrimination ("right to travel").

I've been talking about the implications of the Saenz and Ward cases for a while now. It was a complete surprise today to find that not only had somebody used similar arguments in court, but WON on them. That's huge :).

As I said on the opencarry forum, what Ed has now is a discovery vehicle *lacking* in the Sykes case. We absolutely should support Ed's case to the hilt for two reasons:

1) If the US Supremes incorporate the 2nd in the McDonald case and yet Sacramento County (in Sykes) and San Diego county (in Ed's case) DO NOT cave in immediately, we'll be further ahead.

2) If they do cave in (I'd call it 50/50 odds?) post-incorporation, then we'll still have valuable PR material from Ed's case that we wouldn't otherwise have.

Ed: EMail me your phone number to 1.jim.march@gmail.com - we have a lot to talk about over the weekend. I have some details you're likely not aware of, including a statewide conspiracy to hide "good cause" details running right up to the California DOJ.
Aside from the 2A issues, you'd have to believe the other "may-issues" may start to panic if forced to open their books and show Citizen A's and Citizen B's good cause being identical, but Citizen A gets permit, while Citizen B doesn't, and by the way Citizen A is the brother of a prominent politician.

Edward Peruta
01-16-2010, 5:29 AM
000

wildhawker
01-16-2010, 8:34 AM
Are you seriously so dense as to entrust our civil rights to a fairly tale? Is *your* ego so invested into your [copycat] case that you'd refuse assistance from the singular best attorney on the subject in the United States (and the supporting coalition)?

You beat a motion to dismiss. You're a fool to be so cocky so soon.

When should I expect to see that MSJ?

We should all be on the same team and refrain from comments about who did what. I filed my case AFTER making contact and explaining my situation to several individuals here in California who I considered and believed to be prominent active advocates for the Second Amendment.

I filed my federal civil case because I was standing alone to fight my own fight.

I appologize if my case has ruffled any egos or plans that are in the works to correct the problems in California, but do not regret filing when I did. In my case, the end did justify the means.

Originally Posted by hoffmang
To win carry, one needs the ability to go all the way. However, using tools that one isn't trained for can be dangerous.

May I suggest that everyone familarize themselves with the story of Gideon v. Wainwright.

In part it's about financial resources and the use of "TOOLS" in the legal system.

Google the case and read for yourself how a simple pen and piece of paper can change the rules in the legal game.

Here is some of the story:

Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), is a landmark case in United States Supreme Court history. In the case, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that state courts are required under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution to provide counsel in criminal cases for defendants who are unable to afford their own attorneys.

Gideon appeared in court and was too poor to afford counsel, whereupon the following conversation took place:

The COURT: Mr. Gideon, I am sorry, but I cannot appoint Counsel to represent you in this case. Under the laws of the State of Florida, the only time the Court can appoint Counsel to represent a Defendant is when that person is charged with a capital offense. I am sorry, but I will have to deny your request to appoint Counsel to defend you in this case.

GIDEON: The United States Supreme Court says I am entitled to be represented by Counsel.

Gideon was forced, therefore, to act as his own counsel and conduct a defense of himself in court, emphasizing his innocence in the case. Nevertheless, the jury returned a guilty verdict, sentencing him to serve five years in the state penitentiary.

From his prison cell at Florida State Prison, making use of the prison library and writing in pencil on prison stationery, Gideon appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in a suit against the Secretary to the Florida Department of Corrections, Louie L. Wainwright. He argued that he had been denied counsel and, therefore, his Sixth Amendment rights, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, had been violated.

The court assigned him a prominent Washington, D.C. attorney, Abe Fortas of the law firm Arnold Fortas & Porter, a future Supreme Court justice. Bruce Jacob argued the case for respondents.

THE REST IS HISTORY!!!!!

wildhawker
01-16-2010, 8:38 AM
Orals for Palmer are scheduled for 1/22. Palmer should be the first "bear" case into appeals.

I'm wondering how this case fits on the timeline. Would this case be ahead of Palmer/Sykes in terms of getting to SCOTUS?

GuyW
01-16-2010, 8:55 AM
[edited]

"the City of Santa Maria lost on their motion to dismiss but won on the motion for summary judgment where each side must PROVE their facts. In the MSJ, the judge uses a whole different standard and this is where most plaintiff's lose their case. If he survives the MSJ and we get a similiar ruling, then we may have more reason to be cheerful."

hoffmang
01-16-2010, 9:00 AM
We should all be on the same team and refrain from comments about who did what. I filed my case AFTER making contact and explaining my situation to several individuals here in California who I considered and believed to be prominent active advocates for the Second Amendment.

I filed my federal civil case because I was standing alone to fight my own fight.

I appologize if my case has ruffled any egos or plans that are in the works to correct the problems in California, but do not regret filing when I did. In my case, the end did justify the means.

Originally Posted by hoffmang
To win carry, one needs the ability to go all the way. However, using tools that one isn't trained for can be dangerous.


And after you made contact you represented that you were going to bring an equal protection case not dissimilar to the cases Billy Jack files. Instead you filed a direct 2A challenge using the pleadings from the Sykes case which you knew was held waiting for incorporation. I congratulate you for your luck and the errors of SD counsel.

Ed, I don't care who gets credit. I care who argues for our rights in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. You need to read about Gary Gorski who made sure that we got horrible outcomes pre-Heller here in California. You and your counsel are not Gary Gorski - at least you borrow legal argument from the best.

Here is my simple concern. There are two and only two outcomes of your case.

1. SDSO gives you a permit and your case is moot and creates no binding precedent per se.

2. You win and SD or the AG's office appeals. That's going to be very expensive and your counsel doesn't have appellate experience. Those costs are way before one thinks about having to attempt to get a cert granted at the Supreme Court. Gura is 2 for 2 getting cert for gun cases. I would suggest that it's in the best interests of all to have him leading the charge in the appeals courts and in the Supreme Court.

This is not about my ego. I don't care if CGF's name is on anything. I just care that we have the best people doing the hardest jobs. At this point in time Alan Gura is the most experienced winning firearms constitutional litigator ever based on cold hard facts.

The good news is that I think your case is not going to intentionally interfere for now, but I have to ask you as a though experiment. What's the difference between your case and NRA's attempt to frustrate Gura's Parker v. DC which became Heller v. DC?

My final concern, directly related to my hope in the paragraph above, is that I don't feel you've been quite honest with me or with the community here or at OCDO. Platitudes doesn't respond to the issues.

Also, do you think your colorful past will be the best representation of gun owners should your case get the level of scrutiny that the McDonald plaintiffs are about to go through? Remember that the media are not our friends and even if you're right about your color, it will be spun against you on a national stage (and thus against all gun owners.)

-Gene

7x57
01-16-2010, 9:21 AM
Ed, I don't care who gets credit. I care who argues for our rights in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.



This is not about my ego. I don't care if CGF's name is on anything. I just care that we have the best people doing the hardest jobs.


Which is why winning wars are planned by adults, not kids. A big part of the reason CalNRA and now CGF are *effective* when so many others are not is because they seem to have always been run by adults. You can give a kid a platoon and have it work out. You can't give him a division.

In gun-rights the privates and second lieutenants believe they are generals. When they get the bit in their teeth it works out for us about as well as it worked for the Imperial Japanese Army.


At this point in time Alan Gura is the most experienced winning firearms constitutional litigator ever based on cold hard facts.


And a fine essayist and a gentleman of taste and intellect in an older tradition of American men of letters. :thumbsup:

7x57

bwiese
01-16-2010, 9:45 AM
I do worry about wins like these. It can really lead to overconfidence in parties that are desparate to file something.

That said, they had a pretty good template ;)

dapster
01-16-2010, 11:02 AM
What's with the Court's Order on page 3, line 4, where it mistakenly references the Eighth rather than the Fourteenth Amendment as raised in Mr. Peruta's Second Claim for Relief.

Also, on page 13, lines 7 & 8 , the following sentence is clearly odd:
"Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim Plaintiff’s challenge to the “good cause” requirement of Section 12050 fails."

Edward Peruta
01-16-2010, 11:29 AM
000

hoffmang
01-16-2010, 11:37 AM
Ed,

I'll give you a call this weekend, but I stated the extent of my concern with being mislead as it was stated to us that this was going to be an equal protections case and not a direct 2A challenge. I do have some concerns that some of the FRCP wasn't followed but in one case I may just be unaware.

The concerns I have with your background are with the dossier that MyRockyMount created that implies an odd separation with law enforcement in the 1970's and a no contest plea to securities fraud in Florida in the 1980s. All this is readily available on Google so I leave it to a reader to see what my concerns are. None of it rises to the level that should deny you a right to carry, but it may not make you the best plaintiff to represent gun owners under any intense media scrutiny.

-Gene

nicki
01-16-2010, 12:24 PM
Guys,

The case is not decided yet, but this is a stinging defeat for the San Diego Sheriff.

Ed may have been "lucky", but you know that sooner or later we are bound to get some "good luck" our way.;)


Nicki

obeygiant
01-16-2010, 12:37 PM
Ed,

I'll give you a call this weekend, but I stated the extent of my concern with being mislead as it was stated to us that this was going to be an equal protections case and not a direct 2A challenge. I do have some concerns that some of the FRCP wasn't followed but in one case I may just be unaware.

The concerns I have with your background are with the dossier that MyRockyMount created that implies an odd separation with law enforcement in the 1970's and a no contest plea to securities fraud in Florida in the 1980s. All this is readily available on Google so I leave it to a reader to see what my concerns are. None of it rises to the level that should deny you a right to carry, but it may not make you the best plaintiff to represent gun owners under any intense media scrutiny.

-Gene

From the looks of this (http://www.myrockyhill.com/uploads/Peruta%20Papers.pdf) I would have serious doubts as to whether Mr. Peruta would be a good candidate to represent any Gun Owner.

wildhawker
01-16-2010, 12:38 PM
Luck is great, but then you have to capitalize on it.

Guys,

The case is not decided yet, but this is a stinging defeat for the San Diego Sheriff.

Ed may have been "lucky", but you know that sooner or later we are bound to get some "good luck" our way.;)


Nicki

bwiese
01-16-2010, 12:47 PM
From the looks of this (http://www.myrockyhill.com/uploads/Peruta%20Papers.pdf) I would have serious doubts as to whether Mr. Peruta would be a good candidate to represent any Gun Owner.

Exactly. On the bright side, he's not up for murder/robbery.

press1280
01-16-2010, 1:09 PM
Exactly. On the bright side, he's not up for murder/robbery.

Obviously, SDSO doesn't think Ed is a danger/disqualified from possessing a carry permit, and neither does CT, so that part probably is not a concern.

Couldn't Ed's case be consolidated(if needed) at the circuit level w/Sykes since the issues are pretty much identical?

Edward Peruta
01-16-2010, 2:07 PM
000

georound1
01-16-2010, 3:00 PM
I was recently denied a CCW in San Bernardino county as I was deemed a non-resident when they talked to a neighbor who said she only saw me on weekends. I do have houses in both Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties. If this case in San Diego is won, I wonder if I should refile....There are no definite guidelines on what constitutes Primary residence; at least, none that I could find.
Anyway, glad this motion failed....Good luck on the case.

hoffmang
01-16-2010, 3:08 PM
I will await your call this weekend and hope that I have supplied informaiton that may resolve any concerns you have regading my past.

As I said earlier, I don't consider your colorful past more than that of an activist, though I'd be very careful with the MLK comparison. His criminal record was as to his civil rights work. That said and as I said, I'm confident you have your good explanations. However, if your case goes far enough, you'll be in a food fight with folks like the LA Times where your side of the story will be ignored.

I'll give you a call Sunday.

-Gene

Edward Peruta
01-16-2010, 6:17 PM
000

command_liner
01-16-2010, 7:12 PM
Mr. Peruta,

Victories like yours are great to see. Some of us have been working
this fight for 25 years and are now seeing so many changes so fast it
is hard to keep up.

The commenter 1JimMarch pointed out something important, the
Duke Power angle. The best review of the 1970 SJC Duke ruling
is in the book "The Bell Curve", but the essential result is that anything
that government does, where that thing ends up having a racial bias
in the result, is presumed, by default, to be illegal.

So, by getting a federal judge to open up the SDSD to discovery, it is a
foregone conclusion that Duke violations will be found. After all, the
only purpose for passing the current handgun law was to deny Chinese,
Mexicans and Negros the ability to carry handguns. The people that
passed the law in the 1920s were very clear on that point. The current
Assembly is also very clear on that point. Back in July of 2009, when
it could not pass laws, the Assembly passed a detailed, formal apology
for passing racially discriminatory laws, including the current handgun
law.

If we can open SDSD the whole 58 counties will just unzip. The
clear, obvious, racial discrimination at the heart of the current system may
just collapse.

Timing, and events, are important. The Assembly has been presented
AB357 to correct the issue, and has shelved it twice -- recently. We
are in the countdown period to a lockout of the Assembly due to the
declaration of fiscal emergency. With the right sequence of events,
the laws may be declared unconstitutional, and thus voided. At the same
time, the Assembly will not be able to pass any new laws. There may
be a period where we have Vermont-style carry.

Say this goes on for 3 months -- and the world does not end. What can
the antis say? "The lack of crime will only continue if we pass harsh,
unconstitutional gun laws!"

You may have in your hands the lever to overturn the current pile of
racist crap we all hate. Please realize just how valuable this chance is.

diginit
01-16-2010, 8:06 PM
Wow, This thread certainly went for a ride in the hills. Very interesting though...
Any idea when we may see a conclusion to this case?

CitaDeL
01-16-2010, 8:53 PM
Wow, This thread certainly went for a ride in the hills. Very interesting though...
Any idea when we may see a conclusion to this case?

Dare I say it?

"... ....."

Purple K
01-16-2010, 10:19 PM
Two weeks

vrand
01-16-2010, 10:42 PM
Two weeks

:thumbsup:

1JimMarch
01-16-2010, 11:12 PM
I talked to Ed today. He strikes me as extremely knowledgeable and has a VERY solid rep with Conn. gunnies.

Two quick examples:

OK GUYS,
I recieved a call today from Lt. Proudfoot to inform me of the Stratford Police Department’s reconsideration of my application for a Temporary Permit to Carry!!!!!

I was told that because of the phone calls from the Wonderful Mr. ED Puruta from CCDL and Sgt. Doug Hall, That they looked further into the Fl. Statue and found that my Arrest was Not a Conviction!!!!

I like to thank Mr Ed Peruta and the CCDL for all the help they have done for me, as well as OC.ORG !!

WITH OUT YOU GUYS, I would of had to wait for my appeal date (in March of 2011) to get what I will be getting in a few days!!

I like to take some time to tell everyone on this forum to SUPPORT THE CCDL!!!!
They are great guys with alot of knowledge AND I AM THANKFUL TO THEM!!!

All tho I do not have my CC Permit yet I signed up to be a member of the CCDL and I support everything they do!!!!

And I also like to thank Chief John J. Buturla and Lt. Proudfoot Stratford Police Department, Because of your decision to take time to listen and to further research this issue further for me.

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum14/34568.html

Ed is also backing the Goldberg case, in which a guy was minding his own biz with a CCW permit, accidentally flashed, somebody got scared, called the cops, they arrested the permitholder despite Conn. being an open-carry-legal state (with carry permit). See also:

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum14/35606.html

While I haven't had a listen yet, he says the audio from the federal 2nd circuit court found at:

http://www.ctgunrights.com/06.Audio/Compete%20Second%20Circuit%20Audio%20in%20Kuck%20a nd%20Goldberg.mp3

...is a hoot and a half.

Upshot: I believe Ed should be taken very seriously. I'm not going to discuss his upcoming tactics in a public forum other than to say I approve, and I genuinely believe Gene and even Alan Gura would approve.

Meplat
01-16-2010, 11:42 PM
What I want to know is how did you get the police department personnel files? It is almost impossible to get that kind of dirt on an LEO. He must have really pissed somebody off!:eek:


From the looks of this (http://www.myrockyhill.com/uploads/Peruta%20Papers.pdf) I would have serious doubts as to whether Mr. Peruta would be a good candidate to represent any Gun Owner.

Meplat
01-17-2010, 12:07 AM
I believe that 7X57 said something to the effect that you can give a kid a company but not a division. I ask: If the kid gets lucky and breaches the enemies lines, does not the wise old general commit resources to exploit it?

1JimMarch
01-17-2010, 1:14 AM
He has indeed blown open a hole in their lines and is running rampant in their back yard.

navyinrwanda
01-17-2010, 10:19 AM
From the looks of this (http://www.myrockyhill.com/uploads/Peruta%20Papers.pdf) I would have serious doubts as to whether Mr. Peruta would be a good candidate to represent any Gun Owner.
No kidding. And a quick Google search also reveals that Mr. Peruta has a history of litigation with local police departments. "Cooperative" doesn't seem to be a word that most would use to describe him.

This is yet another example of the "tone-deaf" attitude that can be displayed by some of the more individualist members of the gun community. Whether it's a strident insistence on the righteousness of their cause, or a jarring habit of comparing themselves to the leaders of the American Civil Rights movement, none of it helps our cause.

"Optics" carry weight — a lot of weight.

Gray Peterson
01-17-2010, 10:48 AM
Upshot: I believe Ed should be taken very seriously. I'm not going to discuss his upcoming tactics in a public forum other than to say I approve, and I genuinely believe Gene and even Alan Gura would approve.

It's not a matter of believing that his tactics would be effective (His tactics are essentially Alan Gura's carbon copied). Yes, he's been effective in Connecticut on multiple occasions and good at prodding the authorities to stop harassing open carriers. I'll give him a mountain of credit for that.

However, his history will not stand up to the light of close scrutiny. Given the fact that securities fraud and other financial crimes are very much hated given the current economic downtown over those issues, to me it's too much of a taint especially when the LA Times gets a hold of it.

Peruta got lucky. He had a combination of two things here: A really good judge, and very bad defense counsel on the other side.

bwiese
01-17-2010, 10:55 AM
Peruta got lucky. He had a combination of two things here: a really
|good judge, and very bad defense counsel on the other side.

And a good master template for the case ;) taken from Sykes. At least something was right.

Though Sykes, by contrast, had plaintiffs with impeccable backgrounds and without "color".

wildhawker
01-17-2010, 11:19 AM
And a good master template for the case ;) taken from Sykes. At least something was right.

Though Sykes, by contrast, had plaintiffs with impeccable backgrounds and without "color".

Sykes also has that little issue of, you know, having the attorney who *wrote the complaint* with experience up to and including winning a 2A case (soon plural) at SCOTUS.

yellowfin
01-17-2010, 11:31 AM
Speaking of successful cases, Palmer is up for orals this week. The 22nd, according to the Wiki.

Edward Peruta
01-17-2010, 12:51 PM
000

Dr. Peter Venkman
01-17-2010, 12:54 PM
I have always trusted the system to look beyond whatever colorful events occured in a persons past and concentrate on the factual issues placed before the court.

Lady Justice doesn't attempt to draw parallels to MLK when it is convenient, either.

Hopi
01-17-2010, 12:58 PM
For those that have fought for it, freedom and justice have a flavor the protected shall never taste.

and there it is.......


somebody needs to write the function equation for the # of posts and the time distance between said posts required before the inevitable happens and the real patriots pat themselves on the backs....

wildhawker
01-17-2010, 1:35 PM
Ed, you've successfully come across as even more naïve and reckless than your first few posts related.

I hope you get your CCW, Ed; don't get me wrong. However, understand that it would be a tragedy if Sykes is not the "bear" case presented to CA9.

Edward Peruta
01-17-2010, 1:44 PM
000

wildhawker
01-17-2010, 1:57 PM
Ed, I'm sorry you're finding it too difficult to debate an educated and informed audience. I don't know what that says about OCDO but I am pleased that CGN is a place for critical analysis and those who find it useful.

obeygiant
01-17-2010, 2:50 PM
and there it is.......


somebody needs to write the function equation for the # of posts and the time distance between said posts required before the inevitable happens and the real patriots pat themselves on the backs....

that right there ^^^ is funny. :rofl2:

CCWFacts
01-17-2010, 3:28 PM
Ed, you've successfully come across as even more naïve and reckless than your first few posts related.

Yes.

One other poster here described him as "tone deaf". And that's the impression I get from the quotes related to him being fired as a police officer:

He does not take orders, nor criticism well. When he is given instructions, he wants to do things the way he thinks they should be done and not the way he is told to do them. When he is criticized for anything at all, he can come up with a million reasons why it should not be or why somebody else is wrong for him doing this particular thing wrong. He has not even shown that he can be entrusted with the sage and sane operation of a motor vehicle.

In the evaluation of this officer, I would like to say that the officer is immature and because of this most of his problems are his own doing. He will act first, and then think about what he has done, admit that he was wrong, and then do the same thing over again.

Those who say they respect him for his honesty and ethics say he can be an extremist who fails to see the gray areas.

Councilwoman Barbara Surwilo says compromise and diplomacy can sometimes escape him. "If he would just go about things a little differently, he could get the same things done without people rolling their eyes when you talk about him," says Bob Hall, a longtime Rocky Hill resident. Peruta acknowledges there are gray areas, but says the issues he tackles are about right and wrong. Depending on who's asking, people in and around Rocky Hill attribute Peruta's behavior to anything from obsession to insanity.

Many others have noticed he doesn't see gray areas, implications or any other than simple right and wrong. Definitely not a good starting point for winning complex legal battles, because legal questions usually do involve considering different views of a subject.

The PDF then goes on to list unending confrontations with the city, dishonest schemes such as claiming to have a "worm farm" so he can operate an off-road motorcycle track, and numerous lawsuits against his city. Many of these suits were settled for small amounts, and were basically nuisance lawsuits that the city didn't want to fight.

But voices from the past that urge him to find the truth, he says, always push him forward.

"That is Ed Peruta," he [Mr. Peruta] says [about himself]. "That is not a crazy, insane gadfly with no other purpose in life but to harass public officials. There is a reason for what I do. I am still a warrior."

I personally don't have a good impression about someone who talks about himself in the third person and calls himself a warrior.

I hope you get your CCW, Ed; don't get me wrong. However, understand that it would be a tragedy if Sykes is not the "bear" case presented to CA9.

Yes.

Good luck Ed. My deepest wish in this matter is that SD issues you your permit immediately, and therefore you lose standing to pursue your case.

If your case becomes the case to argue CCW in front of the 9th, rather than Sykes, it could delay CCW in this state by years. I have a feeling that you wouldn't care, any more than Mr. Gorski cares about the harm he has done.

1JimMarch
01-17-2010, 4:02 PM
You guys are being way too harsh here. His career in law enforcement ended in 1971 for God's sake...he's had quite a bit of time since then to mellow SOME :).

But seriously, look at it again:

He does not take orders, nor criticism well. When he is given instructions, he wants to do things the way he thinks they should be done and not the way he is told to do them. When he is criticized for anything at all, he can come up with a million reasons why it should not be or why somebody else is wrong for him doing this particular thing wrong.

Well a lot of departments are bureaucratic and do dumb stuff. Apparently he didn't handle that well. And your point is? MY point is that somebody who can't deal with official idiocy such as San Diego's CCW policies is exactly the sort of person who's going to challenge 'em.

Some of you say that like it's a bad thing.

Guys, I've met a LOT of political activists, including specimens from both the right and left (I deal with election issues too, remember?). ALL of us are at a minimum "not normal". By definition. Some closer to "screwloose" in at least some ways :). Most people ("normal" people?) don't fight city hall. I'll tell y'all right now, *I'm* abnormal :). Mild Asperger's case for starters.

Hell, most people won't even pack daily in a state like Vermont or Alaska where it's easy to do, no permit needed. By definition, all gunnies who either want to or do pack daily are at the extreme end of a bell curve of some description.

Now lookit. Gura's plan in Sykes involves zero discovery, a pure "motions suit". Sykes is on hold until the McDonald ruling. Ed plans discovery. There's no way Ed is going to end up in line ahead of Sykes...Ed isn't done dealing with *district* court, never mind getting near an appellate court.

Chill the hell out already. Stop trying to rip up a guy who has a SOLID rep in his main home state, who put his own cash money down to finance litigation and who just got a freakin' KILLER ruling.

Gawd.

CCWFacts
01-17-2010, 4:20 PM
You guys are being way too harsh here. His career in law enforcement ended in 1971 for God's sake...he's had quite a bit of time since then to mellow SOME :).

Yes but the descriptions of him and his confrontations in that PDF go on until quite recently and it's all a consistent picture. There's nothing in there where he has a moment where he says, "and then I realized... I need to listen to other people and learn and understand before I take action..." It's just more suits, some dishonest schemes (one of which gets him a misdemeanor), and an unending fight against his city in which he sees things in black and white.

Well a lot of departments are bureaucratic and do dumb stuff. Apparently he didn't handle that well.

I get the impression it goes way beyond that.

Guys, I've met a LOT of political activists, including specimens from both the right and left (I deal with election issues too, remember?). ALL of us are at a minimum "not normal".

I agree with that. But some are "not normal" in a likable way, a way which is genuinely motivated by ideals not ego. That's where I categorize you, btw. Guys like Gorski and Peruta fall into another categorization: ego-driven, self-indulgent, not caring what harm they cause in their quest to prop up their own egos by being "warriors". Note that Mr. Gorski also considers himself a "warrior".

Now lookit. Gura's plan in Sykes involves zero discovery, a pure "motions suit". Sykes is on hold until the McDonald ruling. Ed plans discovery. There's no way Ed is going to end up in line ahead of Sykes...Ed isn't done dealing with *district* court, never mind getting near an appellate court.

That's good. May Mr. Peruta's discovery go on for a long time.

And btw, I am certain that I will enjoy what comes out of that discovery because it's going to dig up some awful things. I just PMed you about some awful thing that is hinted at by the discovery in another CCW case from a while ago. Who knows what may lurk in SD's files; whatever it is, it's going to be ugly, and well merits being dug up and exposed.

Chill the hell out already. Stop trying to rip up a guy who has a SOLID rep in his main home state, who put his own cash money down to finance litigation and who just got a freakin' KILLER ruling.

What's your stance on Gorksi, with his lawsuit that solidified aspects of our AW law here? He did a lot of harm by somehow getting himself to the appeals level.

AngelDecoys
01-17-2010, 4:27 PM
Ed, please do us all a favor and don't pull a Gorski. Having your attorney (no matter how well qualified) collaborate with other 'like minds' is better than going at this alone. Something Gorski refused to do. Ed, please at least consider having your attorney collaborate with others. Its better for you. Its better for every citizen in the 9th circuit.

Whether that's refining briefs, bouncing oral questions back and forth, discussing strategy, or obtaining information for a later suit, we are all better served with an attorney who has been prepared to the best of their ability.

While I wish you the best, I hope you head the above advice (over putting us all in peril by just charging in).

1JimMarch
01-17-2010, 4:41 PM
Well having spoken to Ed on the phone twice now and read a lot of his stuff, I have a better opinion on Ed's effectiveness versus Gorski.

On the other hand, I think Gorski has had some really, REALLY bad judges and in at least one case, a bad situation.

The decision in Silveira was just...amazing. For those who haven't seen this yet, and Ed if you're reading, check out the attached file. The Silveira decision was in some ways flat-out amazing. Judge Reinhardt tried to rebuild the entire structure of American gun control based in large part on the book "Arming America" by Bellesiles just before it was debunked...if you're not familiar with THAT fiasco:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=5&ved=0CBgQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cwsl.edu%2Fcontent%2Fbelknap% 2FFall%2520from%2520Grace.pdf&ei=47lTS-vFKobiswPDz8HmBw&usg=AFQjCNFcvwyTpKTiW17MZsRzEbZ47sdMGQ&sig2=r8bXppSzH1aSXtTQFPsbuA

...for a starting point. Read that, then read the attached if you don't yet know about "Arming America" - if you're familiar with "Arming America", give the link above a skip.

My point is, Reinhardt couldn't support the Cruikshank case or the numerous cases that depended on it because he knew Cruikshank was a colossally racist freakshow of a case (same as the Heller court found). So he needed something else to hang his hat on, and right at the same time, the fraudulent "Arming America" was available and handy. Without that fraud, what Reinhardt tried in Silveira wouldn't have been possible.

Which suggests Gorski was the victim of truly horrible bad luck :(.

wildhawker
01-17-2010, 4:41 PM
I find it equally amusing and perplexing that some feel discovery in Mr. Peruta's case to be a useful exercise. I think CCWFacts has it absolutely right... may the discovery process be a long one.

Maybe we find some dirty laundry (and some part of us wants to be justified in saying "See, I told you so. These guys are dirty rotten scoundrels!"), but in the final analysis it doesn't really matter. SDSO's (and CA's) permit issuance policy is either unconstitutional or not.

CCWFacts
01-17-2010, 4:55 PM
The decision in Silveira was just...amazing.

No it's not amazing.

I am not a lawyer so I don't really understand the legal issues, but I am someone who can see very clearly that Mr. Gorski is incompetent and blinded by his own ego. Incompetent and blinded by ego would doom his case no matter what kind of luck he had.

Which suggests Gorski was the victim of truly horrible bad luck :(.

I don't think so. I don't think Gorski could win any case.

I find it equally amusing and perplexing that some feel discovery in Mr. Peruta's case to be a useful exercise.

Yes, I don't see why there would need to be discovery for the constitutional question. That's why Sykes has no discovery, right?

I think CCWFacts has it absolutely right...

Thank you.

may the discovery process be a long one.

Yes please.

Maybe we find some dirty laundry (and some part of us wants to be justified in saying "See, I told you so. These guys are dirty rotten scoundrels!"),

I'm sure we will find such.

but in the final analysis it doesn't really matter.

That's right. It will be enjoyable to see some of the floaters in there, but they're irrelevant, because we want to win on constitutional arguments. Right now what we have is a corrupt may-issue system. I don't want to go from here to a fair may-issue system. I want to get rid of may-issue itself.

SDSO's (and CA's) permit issuance policy is either unconstitutional or not.

That's right.

Edward Peruta
01-17-2010, 5:01 PM
000

1JimMarch
01-17-2010, 5:08 PM
In order to brew up Silveira, Reinhardt needed his wife's BS (Ramona Ripston, SoCal ACLU director) plus Arming America.

Two weeks after Silveira came out, Arming America finally imploded and Bellesiles was tossed out of Emory in disgrace. The Silveira decision was edited after the fact to remove Arming America references, but still referred heavily to documents from that symposium that was 100% in praise of Arming America.

That's just...bizarre.

In his most recent adventure, poor Gorski ran into a three-judge all-female panel, one of whom seriously suggested that since the Heller decision was about in-home ownership, gun CARRY was still not constitutionally supported. And the others appeared to nod along with such "wisdom".

Under that interpretation, we have no civil rights until the Nine Robes In DC grants them. So a year or two after the BoR was in force, the Federal gov't could of course torture confessions out of people, ban free speech or otherwise urinate all over the BoR, right? Bzzzt. Wrong.

Poor Gorski.

383green
01-17-2010, 6:14 PM
What are you afraid of?

Posters in this thread have repeatedly explained what they are afraid of, but you do not listen. Instead, you switch to the largest boldface font available in order to not listen even more loudly, and threaten to run away to another forum rather than facing the criticism you have found here.

And that represents the biggest thing that people fear of you: You charge forward without listening or considering the implications of your actions. We've already seen how that approach usually ends up through the actions of Mr. Gorski, whose legal actions in the name of second amendment rights are a definite liability rather than a potential benefit, and like you, he is incapable of listening to words which did not come from his own mouth, or taking responsibility for mistakes. Like you, he also likens himself to a warrior and places himself on a pedestal with great historical figures.

You have no ears. And that is why this posting, like all of the other ones in this thread, will have no impact upon you.

CCWFacts
01-17-2010, 6:40 PM
Posters in this thread have repeatedly explained what they are afraid of, but you do not listen.

Which is exactly what they said in that personnel file 39 years ago!

And that represents the biggest thing that people fear of you: You charge forward without listening or considering the implications of your actions.

Yes, and Mr. Peruta himself just said, "I live life like there is no tomorrow." That's what we're afraid of. And also (caps removed) "When I made my application, I was not concerned about everyone in California." Another thing we're afraid of, because if you are the one arguing for CCW in front of the 9th Circuit, you will be arguing for everyone in California.

We've already seen how that approach usually ends up through the actions of Mr. Gorski, whose legal actions in the name of second amendment rights are a definite liability rather than a potential benefit, and like you, he is incapable of listening to words which did not come from his own mouth, or taking responsibility for mistakes. Like you, he also likens himself to a warrior and places himself on a pedestal with great historical figures.

Excellent post 383Green. That's exactly right.

383green
01-17-2010, 6:56 PM
Excellent post 383Green. That's exactly right.

Thanks!

I have observed that people who liken themselves to heros generally aren't heros, and people who are heros generally don't represent themselves as such. Hubris is a dangerous thing, and it often has a blast radius.

wildhawker
01-17-2010, 7:46 PM
So what I would like to ask the critics is this:

What are you afraid of?

Mr. Peruta, I think you've made it abundantly clear as to why we should be concerned. I'm not sure if you'll have any difficulty making out what I'm trying to say without using extraordinarily oversized, bolded text; if you'd find it helpful I'd be happy to restate in all caps.

Consider this my last post here on Calguns, I will only communicate with Hoffman, Davis or Gura on my issues, it serves no purpose to deal with sideline spectators. And if they don't want to talk or plan the future, I'll respect their decsion to do so.

I must say I'm a bit confused; first you ask a question and in the very next paragraph go on to say that you'll not participate in the very dialogue your question presumably seeks to generate. Alternatively, and more likely, your post was a [poorly delivered] parting shot before retreating to the security of a less critical audience. Dr. King you are not, Mr. Peruta.

You know, you might have a point about sideline spectators- that is, if any of the people voicing their concerns were merely spectators. Fortunately, this community is made up of an abundance of active RKBA advocates of all different shapes and sizes. "Sideline spectators" is hardly what I'd call them, so it's safe to say that your attempt at a personal attack failed miserably.

Finally, do note that my name appears at the bottom of each and every post. My contact information is freely available (email is wildhawker at gmail dot com). I'll refrain from addressing investments of time and money in this post since they are not how I define my role in the cause. As I said, I hope you get your CCW... just as I'd like to one day see my wife with a legal means of defending herself. Just as I wish for each and everyone here, and throughout these United States.

CCWFacts
01-17-2010, 9:21 PM
I have observed that people who liken themselves to heros generally aren't heros, and people who are heros generally don't represent themselves as such.

Yup. Anyone who says, "I am a hero / warrior / important historical figure / secret Tzadik", isn't.

I'm aware that "the right people" were well aware of this problem (nuts like Gorski) doing us tremendous damage by arguing the foundational 2A cases, and that's why they got on it so quick.

We really did dodge a bullet (or perhaps a nunchuck) that Maloney isn't going to be the one arguing for incorporation.

It's very sad how much harm Gorski has done in this state; maybe some more intelligent challenge to our AWB would have accomplished more.

Let's all hope that a) SD issues Mr. Peruta a permit and b) discovery takes a long long time.

bwiese
01-17-2010, 9:25 PM
Gene's told me he hasn't had a chance to talk with Mr. Peruta yet, but will be doing so soon.

The worries do remain, for the obvious reasons.

383green
01-17-2010, 9:27 PM
Let's all hope that a) SD issues Mr. Peruta a permit and b) discovery takes a long long time.

Agreed. I do want him to get his permit(*); I just don't want him to risk my chance of eventually being able to get one in the process.


(*) Ok, to be honest, I don't think he or I should need a permit to carry a weapon, either openly or concealed. But practically speaking, I think we'll need to settle for a needing a permit and only being able to carry one way or the other in this state, at least in the fairly near future.

1JimMarch
01-17-2010, 10:39 PM
Ed does speak of his exploits at times, but he can also back it up.

http://kilo35usmc.org/vn/musings/gerheim.html

These are period reports to a military newspaper, late 1960s. Search for the word "Peruta". He told me the gun involved was an M14, iron sights. He had to "walk the rounds in" at that range. And the reporter actually saw him make the shot, although Ed didn't know it at the time.

Liberty1
01-18-2010, 12:44 PM
Ed does speak of his exploits at times, but he can also back it up.

http://kilo35usmc.org/vn/musings/gerheim.html

These are period reports to a military newspaper, late 1960s. Search for the word "Peruta". He told me the gun involved was an M14, iron sights. He had to "walk the rounds in" at that range. And the reporter actually saw him make the shot, although Ed didn't know it at the time.

...

MARINE'S MARKSMANSHIP
IMPRESSES ENEMY


By Cpl. Earl Gerheim



PHU BAI Vietnam-- During World War I, an American general in France, states that the most deadly weapon in the world is a U.S. Marine and his rifle.

Half a world away, and 50 years later, a Leatherneck in Vietnam proved that observation.

Cpl. Edward Peruta, was serving with "K" Co.,2nd(sic) Bn., Fifth Marine Regiment during an operation south of Phu Bai.

The company was on a mountain, sweeping a penninsula in search of enemy troops, when Viet Cong were spotted in a valley approximately 2,000 meters away.

The Marines were called(sic) in an artillery fire mission on the enemy and waiting for the incoming shells.

"All of a sudden the VC started to run, so I just dinged one," stated Peruta in describing his actions.

I raised the sights on my M-14 rifle, used 'Kentucky windage' and shot.

His victim dropped to the ground as several more enemy vaulted from the bush in a dead run.

"I could barely see him," said Peruta, "I was lucky."

Kharn
01-18-2010, 5:47 PM
Any thoughts on if/how the Sykes/Peruta attack plan could work in a state where CC and OC require the same permit, the permit is available to both resident and non-residents (no reciprocity) and requires 'good and substantial reason' to be issued?

MD only has one issuing agency, the state police, and claims a 95% issuance rate due to convincing people it would be a waste of their non-refundable application fee if they are not a business owner or PI.

Gray Peterson
01-18-2010, 6:28 PM
Any thoughts on if/how the Sykes/Peruta attack plan could work in a state where CC and OC require the same permit, the permit is available to both resident and non-residents (no reciprocity) and requires 'good and substantial reason' to be issued?

MD only has one issuing agency, the state police, and claims a 95% issuance rate due to convincing people it would be a waste of their non-refundable application fee if they are not a business owner or PI.

You'll have to go to federal court, as your state Court of Appeals ruled that even if RKBA was incorporated, it did not apply outside of the home.

Palmer v. District of Columbia would not apply outside of DC until SCOTUS rules on it.

What I would do is see if MSI (Maryland Shall Issue) can contact SAF and Calguns Foundation and see if perhaps they can refer you to Alan Gura. Gura, despite his close California connections, resides in Fairfax, and I believe he of all people would like to be able to carry in Maryland.

Essentially, Maryland is a very EASY suit to file. You cannot even UOC there. Best thing to do is apply for a license, get denied, and then sue post McDonald. McDonald and his other co-plaintiffs tried to register their handguns and was denied. There are no Article 3 standing questions if you have a flat out denial.

-Gray

hoffmang
01-18-2010, 7:22 PM
Oh, I expect Gura will be having fun in Maryland... Just remember that most all of the legal resources on the pro-gun side are focused on making sure we get as large a victory in McDonald as we can first. Horse, cart and all that.

-Gene

Purple K
01-18-2010, 7:58 PM
Ed, I don't yet know you, but I like your style.

I spoke too soon! I withdraw my comment.

guayuque
01-18-2010, 8:34 PM
And after you made contact you represented that you were going to bring an equal protection case not dissimilar to the cases Billy Jack files. Instead you filed a direct 2A challenge using the pleadings from the Sykes case which you knew was held waiting for incorporation. I congratulate you for your luck and the errors of SD counsel.

Ed, I don't care who gets credit. I care who argues for our rights in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. You need to read about Gary Gorski who made sure that we got horrible outcomes pre-Heller here in California. You and your counsel are not Gary Gorski - at least you borrow legal argument from the best.

Here is my simple concern. There are two and only two outcomes of your case.

1. SDSO gives you a permit and your case is moot and creates no binding precedent per se.

2. You win and SD or the AG's office appeals. That's going to be very expensive and your counsel doesn't have appellate experience. Those costs are way before one thinks about having to attempt to get a cert granted at the Supreme Court. Gura is 2 for 2 getting cert for gun cases. I would suggest that it's in the best interests of all to have him leading the charge in the appeals courts and in the Supreme Court.

This is not about my ego. I don't care if CGF's name is on anything. I just care that we have the best people doing the hardest jobs. At this point in time Alan Gura is the most experienced winning firearms constitutional litigator ever based on cold hard facts.

The good news is that I think your case is not going to intentionally interfere for now, but I have to ask you as a though experiment. What's the difference between your case and NRA's attempt to frustrate Gura's Parker v. DC which became Heller v. DC?

My final concern, directly related to my hope in the paragraph above, is that I don't feel you've been quite honest with me or with the community here or at OCDO. Platitudes doesn't respond to the issues.

Also, do you think your colorful past will be the best representation of gun owners should your case get the level of scrutiny that the McDonald plaintiffs are about to go through? Remember that the media are not our friends and even if you're right about your color, it will be spun against you on a national stage (and thus against all gun owners.)

-Gene

Seems to me, Gene, if he does win and the AG appeals or vice versa there will be dozens of heavy hitter appellate lawyers lining up to take up the case. They always do in leading edge cases.

CCWFacts
01-18-2010, 9:03 PM
Seems to me, Gene, if he does win and the AG appeals or vice versa there will be dozens of heavy hitter appellate lawyers lining up to take up the case. They always do in leading edge cases.

Yeah but what we're worried about is he won't realize he needs them. Just like Gorski decided that he didn't care what happens in California, the great hero Gorski must argue in the 9th Circuit, and so he lost.

I don't like the Brady Campaign types, but I hate Gorski and his colleagues even more, because they do even more harm to us.

1JimMarch
01-18-2010, 9:51 PM
If we're real lucky we'll get at least some dicta in McDonald that says (yet again, Heller said the same thing) that the "bear" part of the 2nd has some meaning too.

Hunt
01-18-2010, 10:17 PM
If we're real lucky we'll get at least some dicta in McDonald that says (yet again, Heller said the same thing) that the "bear" part of the 2nd has some meaning too.

now can it not have any meaning lesser than "keep"?

1JimMarch
01-18-2010, 10:41 PM
now can it not have any meaning lesser than "keep"?

Look...I don't usually complain about grammar but that sentence ought to be taken out back and shot.

Seriously, what?

artherd
01-18-2010, 11:21 PM
Ed, please take the time to talk to and listen to Mr. Gura, Mr. Davis, Mr. Hoffman, and the rest of us. We think we've got a pretty good plan and there are ways for you to be part of it.

We must hang together or we will most surely hang separately.

1JimMarch
01-18-2010, 11:36 PM
Given the disgusting fashion in which he's been treated here, why would he listen to anybody connected with Calguns?

7x57
01-18-2010, 11:46 PM
On the other hand, I think Gorski has had some really, REALLY bad judges and in at least one case, a bad situation.



Which suggests Gorski was the victim of truly horrible bad luck :(.

Jim, while some of your ideas are rather creative, your BS filter needs work. You have to look at the dominant effect. The dominant problem in every Gorski 2A case that has been discussed here is that he is an astrophysically vast screw-up. Compared to the size of that effect, it's really not important whether there were additional little externally-created problems beyond the ocean of trouble of his own making.

The first time Gorski posted here I noticed that you were letting your liking of his motives cloud your judgement about the inherent quality of his plaintiffs and their circumstances and about his ability to do whatever there was to be done with the material he had.

7x57

7x57
01-18-2010, 11:47 PM
Given the disgusting fashion in which he's been treated here, why would he listen to anybody connected with Calguns?

And how would that be different than his unalterable course before he came here?

7x57

383green
01-18-2010, 11:49 PM
Given the disgusting fashion in which he's been treated here, why would he listen to anybody connected with Calguns?

Given his own behavior here and accounts of his behavior over the last 40 years, why should we expect him to listen to anybody who disagrees with him?

wildhawker
01-18-2010, 11:52 PM
Given the disgusting fashion in which he's been treated here, why would he listen to anybody connected with Calguns?

I'm sorry, is there some sort of moral superiority in allowing someone to mislead our members?

Alaric
01-19-2010, 1:35 AM
I wouldn't go so far as to say Ed's treatment has been "disgusting", but I think it has been a bit harsh. People, let's remember who our friends are and who they aren't. Ed Peruta is on our side and he's making strides in his case. We should give him as much support in that case as we can - it behooves us to do so.

To Mr. Peruta - please listen to the counsel being offered here. You have stated that you will speak with Gene and Jason Davis. That's excellent and I hope you heed whatever legal/strategic advice is offered to benefit our collective cause.

Everyone, please take a deep breath here. Mr. Peruta is not Mr. Gorski, and attempts to paint him as such simply allienate him and create rifts in the fabric of our cause. Let's work together. Thanks.

1JimMarch
01-19-2010, 2:57 AM
The very first thing I said to Ed, posted over at the opencarry forum, was a plea to take a look at the Ward case. He did and thanked me. I talked to him about discovery issues. He listened.

My experience is that if he's treated with at least a basic level of human dignity, he does indeed listen to advice.

Some of y'all damn well did NOT. If you'd treated me the way you treated him, I sure as hell wouldn't listen to a word y'all are saying.

The only saving grace to this fiasco is that the REAL pros on the level of Gene Hoffman haven't treated him badly. They're smarter than that.

Overall, I've lost a lot of respect for the Calguns crew over this mess. This is by far the most knowledgeable RKBA forum I've ever run across, but along the way some of y'all got seriously embittered and are starting to lose your humanity.

pullnshoot25
01-19-2010, 7:10 AM
The very first thing I said to Ed, posted over at the opencarry forum, was a plea to take a look at the Ward case. He did and thanked me. I talked to him about discovery issues. He listened.

My experience is that if he's treated with at least a basic level of human dignity, he does indeed listen to advice.

Some of y'all damn well did NOT. If you'd treated me the way you treated him, I sure as hell wouldn't listen to a word y'all are saying.

The only saving grace to this fiasco is that the REAL pros on the level of Gene Hoffman haven't treated him badly. They're smarter than that.

Overall, I've lost a lot of respect for the Calguns crew over this mess. This is by far the most knowledgeable RKBA forum I've ever run across, but along the way some of y'all got seriously embittered and are starting to lose your humanity.

Keep in mind the separation of CGN and CGF. The differences are often blurred accidentally in anger or purposefully out of spite. This is what a lot of OC guys do and it comes back to bite them.

CGF opinion is the one that holds the final weight and the checkbook.

CCWFacts
01-19-2010, 7:48 AM
Jim, while some of your ideas are rather creative, your BS filter needs work. You have to look at the dominant effect. The dominant problem in every Gorski 2A case that has been discussed here is that he is an astrophysically vast screw-up. Compared to the size of that effect, it's really not important whether there were additional little externally-created problems beyond the ocean of trouble of his own making.

I agree with that analysis. People who are competent can take the most advantage of good luck, and can recover the most from bad luck. Gary Gorski is incompetent and no amount of good luck would help him. I wish he would move to some other state, like Canada.

People, let's remember who our friends are and who they aren't. Ed Peruta is on our side and he's making strides in his case. We should give him as much support in that case as we can - it behooves us to do so.

Yes, let's remember who our friends are and who is on our side.

I would put Gary Gorski at the very top of my list of "people who are not on our side". I would put him as more of an enemy than, say, the Brady Campaign. I do know that Mr. Peruta shares some unfortunate characteristics with Mr. Gorski, but I do have a feeling that Mr. Peruta is not quite as far gone as Mr. Gorski is.

But just because he claims he's working for gun rights doesn't make him a friend, if his actions are harmful.

I am not a lawyer, so my understanding of this is poor, but...

It seems like if Mr. Peruta's case gets to the appellate level, he will be arguing for all of our CCW rights, and if he screws that up, we might snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. He is most definitely not the kind of person who is a good plaintiff for this, or a good legal strategist.

Again, if he just gets his CCW, and loses standing, and his case is over, then that's wonderful and I take back all the bad things I've said. If he goes on to a hearing and starts doing things that create precedent that applies to other Californians, then that is where he joins the exclusive Gorski / Maloney club.

7x57
01-19-2010, 8:32 AM
I wish he would move to some other state, like Canada.


Why do you hate our Canuck neighbors and friends so? :D

Personally, I would like him to stay right here and get a fat retainer from LCAV to represent the other side. It's unfair that he is currently forced to do it for free. :43:

7x57

wildhawker
01-19-2010, 9:28 AM
Jim, we all play different roles. You understand that I'm quite certain.

You presume, incorrectly, that these discussions take place in a vacuum. They do not.

I'm sorry if my feelings on Peruta's case offended you. However, understand that I would take a similar line with anyone falsely representing certain details.

If your concerns are of integrity, I'm left to wonder how much of Peruta's bravado has colored your perception.

Gene is a real pro, and I'm pleased he has chosen to make this his cause. Could you imagine if the likes of me, you and Mr. Peruta were left to create positive outcomes on our own? I shudder at the thought.

MudCamper
01-19-2010, 9:44 AM
Given the disgusting fashion in which he's been treated here, why would he listen to anybody connected with Calguns?

Agreed. Civility has gone out the window here lately.

383green
01-19-2010, 9:49 AM
Agreed. Civility has gone out the window here lately.

Informed criticism, reasoned debate and the expression of philosophical disagreement do not equal a lack of civility.

CCWFacts
01-19-2010, 10:14 AM
Agreed. Civility has gone out the window here lately.

I may be one of those here who is guilty of that.

Let me explain. I have no civilized feelings for the Brady Campaign or the LCAV or the Joyce Foundation or their socialist friends. None!

And I regard Gary Gorski as being right among them, among the worst of them. Mr. Gorski has perhaps done more harm to us gun owners in California than even Diane Feinstein. She hasn't passed any state-level laws, but Gorski has established state-level precedents that impact us directly.

The question for me is, does Peruta fall into the same category as Gary Gorski and that Maloney guy in NY? I hope not but he's certainly on the border of it.

Dr. Peter Venkman
01-19-2010, 10:51 AM
Informed criticism, reasoned debate and the expression of philosophical disagreement do not equal a lack of civility.

:thumbsup:

MudCamper
01-19-2010, 11:21 AM
Agreed. Civility has gone out the window here lately.

Informed criticism, reasoned debate and the expression of philosophical disagreement do not equal a lack of civility.

I'm not talking about Gene's arguments, or anyone else who chooses to use reason. I'm talking about the CalGuns Disciples. There is a loyalty bordering on blind faith building here, accompanied by quick judgment and excommunication for the "heretics".

Grakken
01-19-2010, 11:23 AM
I hope the right peeps have had a chance to pow-wow over this by now. It seems to be very important, and no one person should handle it alone. Too much seems to be riding on this. Lets show a United front and win together. What harm can come from working with others on this case?

rkt88edmo
01-19-2010, 11:42 AM
I'm not talking about Gene's arguments, or anyone else who chooses to use reason. I'm talking about the CalGuns Disciples. There is a loyalty bordering on blind faith building here, accompanied by quick judgment and excommunication for the "heretics".


For all that and the sentiment above - um yes, it is called the internet, it is flooded by people who experience personality disconnects due to the anonimty of the screen and keyboard as well as people who are offended by nonsense posts from these anonymous blowhards. Calguns is generally not an exception to this rule.

I know this is not new information, but some people are acting surprised, so I figure it bears repeating.

wildhawker
01-19-2010, 11:54 AM
Interestingly, Mr. Peruta once again joined us this morning at 7:25am to delete the contents of his "last post here at Calguns".

I'll take that as a sign that he's interested in having reasonable conversation here; I'd prefer to assume that than any of the alternatives.

That being said, I look forward to hearing from him as new information presents that he can make available to the public.

obeygiant
01-19-2010, 12:08 PM
I'm not talking about Gene's arguments, or anyone else who chooses to use reason. I'm talking about the CalGuns Disciples.

Not sure who the "disciples" are but I can assure that many here read, digest, research and form their own conclusions.

There is a loyalty bordering on blind faith building here, accompanied by quick judgment and excommunication for the "heretics".

This "Us vs. Them" mentality is the root of all the divisiveness and needs to stop not only here but at the other sites that many of us frequent.

MudCamper
01-19-2010, 12:59 PM
This "Us vs. Them" mentality is the root of all the divisiveness and needs to stop not only here but at the other sites that many of us frequent.

I couldn't agree more.

obeygiant
01-19-2010, 1:15 PM
I couldn't agree more.

glad to see that we're on the same page.

CaliColin
01-19-2010, 1:44 PM
Interestingly, Mr. Peruta once again joined us this morning at 7:25am to delete the contents of his "last post here at Calguns".

I'll take that as a sign that he's interested in having reasonable conversation here; I'd prefer to assume that than any of the alternatives.

That being said, I look forward to hearing from him as new information presents that he can make available to the public.

He deleted the contents of ALL of his posts, leaving all ye who enter this thread to glean his position based on the quotes from others' posts. I think he took his toys and left.

curtisfong
01-19-2010, 2:03 PM
I think he took his toys and left.

My netkook detector is blaring at me.

Dr. Peter Venkman
01-19-2010, 2:16 PM
glad to see that we're on the same page.

Considering Mudcamper has not cared to extrapolate on his "Calguns Disciples" claim, I don't know why you have furthered his unsubstantiated rhetoric. I'd say you two are not even in the same book.

pullnshoot25
01-19-2010, 5:38 PM
Is this a gun board or a stitch and ***** convention?

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
01-19-2010, 6:02 PM
lol, it's almost like these threads are scripted and the guest stars don't know it until it's too late!:D

Al Norris
01-19-2010, 6:03 PM
If Mr. Peruta deleted his posts on advice of his attorney, that would be one thing. A responsible individual would certainly inform the board of such (I've seen it several times at TFL).

Otherwise, it looks just like it is: He had a fit and left in a snit.

I had composed a somewhat long post for TFL's Law & Civil Rights forum, about this case, but something didn't add up. I'm glad that I waited.

1JimMarch
01-19-2010, 6:19 PM
"Yay! We took a guy who had a great rep in another state, who got a KILLER preliminary decision out of a federal judge and we chased him clean off the board so there's no way in hell he'll ever listen to us! MAJOR WIN!"

:ack2:

obeygiant
01-19-2010, 6:36 PM
Considering Mudcamper has not cared to extrapolate on his "Calguns Disciples" claim, I don't know why you have furthered his unsubstantiated rhetoric. I'd say you two are not even in the same book.

You are correct in that he did not explain his comment but neither was I really inquiring about it. There are a few people here who have already been trying to bridge the divide and I would welcome anyone who is sincere in doing so.

wildhawker
01-19-2010, 6:44 PM
"Yay! We took a guy who had a great rep in another state, who got a KILLER preliminary decision out of a federal judge and we chased him clean off the board so there's no way in hell he'll ever listen to us! MAJOR WIN!"

:ack2:

Jim, really? You assume too much.

Alaric
01-19-2010, 6:49 PM
I wonder why I even bother with Calguns any more sometimes. If it isn't the echo chamber, it's the oppression.

Hope, and a desire for alignment. We're all in this battle together, despite our glaring deficiencies.

pTa
01-19-2010, 8:03 PM
i read most of this thread and wondered why it looked disjoined(sp?)
So Ed Peruta signed up and was posting here, but by the time I got to reading it he'd deleted his posts.

My only question is
-When is this case going to be heard compared to the our own CCW and Handgun Roster cases?

Al Norris
01-19-2010, 8:17 PM
Can we be our own worst enemies? It sometimes certainly appears so. However...

In the battle to stake the 2A firmly on constitutional grounds, we absolutely have to pick not only the battles (the court challenges), but the armor (the litigants) we wear. Failure to do this is not an option.

Strategy and teamwork are called for. Mavericks do not get my nod, as they can damage the entire play-card at this stage of the game.

Alaric
01-19-2010, 8:21 PM
i read most of this thread and wondered why it looked disjoined(sp?)
So Ed Peruta signed up and was posting here, but by the time I got to reading it he'd deleted his posts.

My only question is
-When is this case going to be heard compared to the our own CCW and Handgun Roster cases?

May as well ask when is Jay la Suer going to get CGF support... :(

wildhawker
01-19-2010, 9:58 PM
May as well ask when is Jay la Suer going to get CGF support... :(

Hopefully this helps:

CGF is a (c)3 and as such cannot endorse or lobby.

CGN will not be endorsing or contributing to the campaigns of candidates to elected office as it is not a PAC. NRA and CRPA both provide some guidance in this regard, and with CRPA moving in the right direction I think - generally - we should view their info as trustworthy. No need to duplicate efforts here.

There are real constraints to getting into that realm, and it's really not within the charter of either in any case.

Alaric
01-19-2010, 10:06 PM
Thanks Brandon, does that IRS status also apply to the disparaging of political candidates?

Nevermind, this question was rhetorical, as was the previous.

wildhawker
01-19-2010, 10:15 PM
Thanks Brandon, does that IRS status also apply to the disparaging of political candidates?

Nevermind, this question was rhetorical, as was the previous.

I posted for clarity, as some may not understand why that is.

You'll note that neither org takes a stance on any candidate. Or maybe you don't, I'm not sure if your campaigning for JLS makes it hard to read between the lines or differentiate between posting members of CGN and those organizations they may work with.

Alaric
01-19-2010, 10:18 PM
I posted for clarity, as some may not understand why that is.

You'll note that neither org takes a stance on any candidate. Or maybe you don't, I'm not sure if your campaigning for JLS makes it hard to read between the lines.

As did I sir, posted for clarity.

It's good to know where everyone stands.

hoffmang
01-19-2010, 10:24 PM
CGF takes no position on Jay Laseur.

I continue to personally take the position that either out of incompetence or political gain, Jay Laseur attempted to hurt California gun owners and should not be trusted.

Alaric: Have you spoken to Ed Peruta before?

-Gene

Meplat
01-19-2010, 10:27 PM
True, but this guy was not “picked” he just was. I would have been best to say: “Good on you, how can we help”? Thereby gaining some possible influence for the good of both parties while having no formal relationship to come back and bite us in the butt. Cooler heads were not abundant on either side. Too bad.

Can we be our own worst enemies? It sometimes certainly appears so. However...

In the battle to stake the 2A firmly on constitutional grounds, we absolutely have to pick not only the battles (the court challenges), but the armor (the litigants) we wear. Failure to do this is not an option.

Strategy and teamwork are called for. Mavericks do not get my nod, as they can damage the entire play-card at this stage of the game.

hoffmang
01-19-2010, 10:42 PM
I would have been best to say: “Good on you, how can we help”?

You should not assume that that wasn't the case.

-Gene

7x57
01-19-2010, 10:48 PM
True, but this guy was not “picked” he just was. I would have been best to say: “Good on you, how can we help”? Thereby gaining some possible influence for the good of both parties while having no formal relationship to come back and bite us in the butt. Cooler heads were not abundant on either side. Too bad.

I seem to recall precisely the same advice being given in regards to Gary Gorski. Some retain the fantasy that help is always accepted simply because it is needed.

The other problem is that in some cases the strategic choice is to tell a gun owner to go back to the back of the bus because it isn't time. There isn't really any way to sugar-coat that even if true, nor to even feel good about it. But nevertheless, it is often true.

7x57

Alaric
01-19-2010, 10:55 PM
Alaric: Have you spoken to Ed Peruta before?

-Gene

No Gene, I haven't.

Honestly I was tempted to call him to offer what little I can in at least moral support when he posted his phone number. I thought better when he specifically invited only you and the CGF counsel to call.

To clarify my position, I don't have one. I refuse to judge this man based on mistakes he made 20+ years ago, that he owns up to. I have doubts about his case and his statements here, but you must admit, he's made strides in his case that are both unexpected and welcome. We would be foolish to judge him too quickly and ostracize him from whatever wisdom and support we can offer.

My bringing up of JLS is to illustrate the point that we shouldn't make enemies of our friends. Friends can be few and arrive in the most unlikely of packages.

Alaric
01-19-2010, 11:03 PM
I seem to recall precisely the same advice being given in regards to Gary Gorski. Some retain the fantasy that help is always accepted simply because it is needed.

The other problem is that in some cases the strategic choice is to tell a gun owner to go back to the back of the bus because it isn't time. There isn't really any way to sugar-coat that even if true, nor to even feel good about it. But nevertheless, it is often true.

7x57

Rosa Parks was often told that she should've done just that. Students and proponents of human rights in all their manifestations are thankful she didn't.

It takes acts of defiance, sometimes seemingly foolish at first glance, to affect the sort of unforeseeable change that results.

Dr. Peter Venkman
01-19-2010, 11:14 PM
Rosa Parks was often told that she should've done just that. Students and proponents of human rights in all their manifestations are thankful she didn't.

It takes acts of defiance, sometimes seemingly foolish at first glance, to affect the sort of unforeseeable change that results.

As already explained in this thread or another (I cannot remember), Rosa Parks was a selected candidate. It's not as if she just decided to waltz to the front all by her lonesome.

Allow Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks#Events_leading_up_to_boycott) to explain:


Black activists had begun to build a case to challenge state bus segregation laws around the arrest of a 15-year-old girl, Claudette Colvin, a student at Booker T. Washington High School in Montgomery. On March 2, 1955, Colvin was handcuffed, arrested and forcibly removed from a public bus when she refused to give up her seat to a white man. She claimed that her constitutional rights were being violated. At the time, Colvin was active in the NAACP Youth Council, a group to which Parks served as Advisor.

Parks was raising money for Colvin's defense, but when E.D. Nixon learned that Colvin was pregnant, it was decided that Colvin was an unsuitable symbol for their cause. Soon after her arrest she had conceived a child with a much older married man, a moral transgression that scandalized the deeply religious black community. Strategists believed that the segregationist white press would use Colvin's pregnancy to undermine any boycott. The NAACP also had considered, but rejected, earlier protesters deemed unable or unsuitable to withstand the pressures of cross-examination in a legal challenge to racial segregation laws. Colvin was also known to engage in verbal outbursts and cursing.[10] Many of the legal charges against Colvin were dropped. A boycott didn't materialize from the Colvin case, and legal strategists continued to seek a complainant beyond reproach.[11]

Ed Peruta is not the Rosa Parks that you are insinuating, nor is he MLK that he likens himself to.

Alaric
01-19-2010, 11:27 PM
Ed Peruta may have more in common with Colvin than Parks AFAIK, but that doesn't change the fact that he has a case, a strong case, with an unlikely early victory. If you want to write him off based on some personal history or his apparent usurpation of the Sac case, that is your and everyone's choice to make. I don't think that will make him drop his case though. He's made clear he'll go it alone.

So, the choice is ours (more pertinently, CGF's). Continue to attack him in our little hollier than thou corner of the interweb or attempt to engage and mitigate any damage he might unwittingly do. With our counsel, support, and wisdom he might avoid some costly mistake. How's that for realpolitik?

wildhawker
01-19-2010, 11:33 PM
Alaric, again I ask - can you read between the lines?

As I mentioned earlier to Jim:

You assume too much.

and Gene said:

I would have been best to say: “Good on you, how can we help”?

You should not assume that that wasn't the case.

-Gene

Alaric
01-19-2010, 11:42 PM
Brandon, my eyesight is bad but not that bad. My comments have been directed more towards the CGN membership up till now, not the CGF. I saw the writing on the wall and know they are wise enough not to burn bridges until the enemy begins to advance over them.

Al Norris
01-20-2010, 4:59 AM
True, but this guy was not “picked” he just was.
You're correct, of course. He was not "picked." He decided, all on his own, to disregard certain advice (reading between the lines here) in favor of what he considered his own wants and needs.

This was evident in the conversation that took place on this thread. The crowning achievement (If I may be permitted to use this phrase) came when he deleted all of his posts.
I[t] would have been best to say: “Good on you, how can we help”?
I believe that was done (again, reading between the lines (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3641770&postcount=2)). Only he didn't want the help.
Thereby gaining some possible influence for the good of both parties while having no formal relationship to come back and bite us in the butt.
It was obvious, by the manner in which Mr. Peruta replied, no relationship was desired. He wanted accolades for going it alone. He didn't get that, and left with his toys.

Maverick.

CCWFacts
01-20-2010, 8:16 AM
A boycott didn't materialize from the Colvin case, and legal strategists continued to seek a complainant beyond reproach.

Yes, they made a good decision there. While the legal / constitutional facts would be the same, they knew perfectly well that their complainant would be subject to a lot of scrutiny and judgment outside the court room, and that would matter.

There's nothing morally wrong about being a pregnant 15 year old who can't control her temper, but it sure isn't the standard-bearer they wanted to get behind.

A lot of this applies to subject of this thread. Fortunately for the NAACP they were organized and Ms. Colvin was willing to do the right thing and let her case go, rather than putting her ego and personal feelings above the civil rights of all blacks. Of course one other factor is that Ms. Colvin probably didn't have the resources to get a lawyer, so the NAACP and its "right people" didn't give her a choice in what to do. With guys like Gorski, he is a lawyer. An incompetent fool, but one who passed the bar and so can file cases.

swhatb
01-20-2010, 10:11 AM
Tag for future updates!

swaits
01-24-2010, 10:16 AM
Wow.. pack mentality at its worst. You guys need some chill pills.

Say what you will about Ed, as he's often stated he prefers to be called, but the guy has some big fsckin' balls. Like this guy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycxvxR3lM5M), only I'm pretty sure Ed's are bigger, and maybe even made out of brass.

When he first showed up on OCDO a few years ago, I too had that sort of, "hmm, that's a bit kooky" feeling. So did other OCDOers. But the guy stuck around. Seems like a fighter.

Anyway. How about all of us not in the know just let Gene et. al. talk to Ed and work out their issues amongst themselves? Until then, why don't you go make another donation to CGF?

edit: I just donated, again. Donations can be made here (http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/donate).

wildhawker
01-24-2010, 10:34 AM
Your many unfounded assumptions are amusing. However, it is unfortunate that Ed deleted his comments so as to remove any hope that this thread could be viewed in the context of the original discussion.

Wow.. pack mentality at its worst. You guys need some chill pills.

Say what you will about Ed, as he's often stated he prefers to be called, but the guy has some big fsckin' balls. Like this guy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycxvxR3lM5M), only I'm pretty sure Ed's are bigger, and maybe even made out of brass.

When he first showed up on OCDO a few years ago, I too had that sort of, "hmm, that's a bit kooky" feeling. So did other OCDOers. But the guy stuck around. Seems like a fighter.

Anyway. How about all of us not in the know just let Gene et. al. talk to Ed and work out their issues amongst themselves? Until then, why don't you go make another donation to CGF?

edit: I just donated, again. Donations can be made here (http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/donate).

tango-52
01-24-2010, 12:00 PM
Your many unfounded assumptions are amusing. However, it is unfortunate that Ed deleted his comments so as to remove any hope that this thread could be viewed in the context of the original discussion.

Kestryll might want to consider changing the edit time from unlimited to 15 minutes or so. I hate it when I catch someone making extremely stupid comments and they go back the next day and modify out their stupidity. :p

socal2310
01-24-2010, 12:21 PM
Kestryll might want to consider changing the edit time from unlimited to 15 minutes or so. I hate it when I catch someone making extremely stupid comments and they go back the next day and modify out their stupidity. :p

I would support that, but would prefer an hour or so. It gives people an opportunity to respond to immediate criticism while still making sure that hard headed stupidity remains on display.

Ryan

1JimMarch
01-24-2010, 10:36 PM
Please, admins, DO NOT block editing after the fact.

Not if this is to remain a forum for serious political activism.

Do you guys understand that the bad guys (including SDPD and their lawyers) read Calguns? Do you understand that the various slams you did against Ed made it less likely that SDPD would cave in, which is the outcome you all claim you want?

You guys that slammed him made absolutely sure you could no longer talk to somebody who IS in the driver's seat in an important case. You gave aid and comfort to his opposition. And now you want to make sure that if somebody DOES make a mistake that's visible to their court enemies, they can't go back and fix it?

Are you nuts?

I am absolutely disgusted at the pathetic ethics and insane tactical considerations shown in this thread. I hope the moderators yank the whole thing, simply to cover up how bone-deep stupid some of the membership here can be.

I hope y'all feel good about your "win".

wildhawker
01-24-2010, 10:44 PM
Jim, if you're going to throw a tantrum, rant and insult members over issues you're not completely in the loop on then it's not the thread at risk of getting "yanked".

Please, admins, DO NOT block editing after the fact.

Not if this is to remain a forum for serious political activism.

Do you guys understand that the bad guys (including SDPD and their lawyers) read Calguns? Do you understand that the various slams you did against Ed made it less likely that SDPD would cave in, which is the outcome you all claim you want?

You guys that slammed him made absolutely sure you could no longer talk to somebody who IS in the driver's seat in an important case. You gave aid and comfort to his opposition. And now you want to make sure that if somebody DOES make a mistake that's visible to their court enemies, they can't go back and fix it?

Are you nuts?

I am absolutely disgusted at the pathetic ethics and insane tactical considerations shown in this thread. I hope the moderators yank the whole thing, simply to cover up how bone-deep stupid some of the membership here can be.

I hope y'all feel good about your "win".

artherd
01-24-2010, 11:30 PM
Ed Peruta is on our side.

He is when he is communicating with the rest of the legal community on affairs that affect us all.

If he pulls a Gorski and makes bad law he is the enemy.

Ed, please don't go down in history as the enemy.

There is a loyalty bordering on blind faith

There is nothing blind about supporting proven habitual winners.

Rosa Parks was often told that she should've done just that. Students and proponents of human rights in all their manifestations are thankful she didn't.

It takes acts of defiance, sometimes seemingly foolish at first glance, to affect the sort of unforeseeable change that results.

Parks was the secretary of the NAACP and was carefully selected and timed.

Study history or be doomed to repeat it.

Ed Peruta may have more in common with Colvin than Parks AFAIK, but that doesn't change the fact that he has a case

No, it just means his case as written will likely fail and harm us all.

With our counsel, support, and wisdom he might avoid some costly mistake. How's that for realpolitik?

What makes you think that was not extended, repeatedly?

Kestryll might want to consider changing the edit time from unlimited to 15 minutes or so. I hate it when I catch someone making extremely stupid comments and they go back the next day and modify out their stupidity. :p

Not gonna happen.

bwiese
01-25-2010, 3:36 AM
Jim:

I'd've expected you to be a bit more thoughtful on this...

....this discussion will not affect SDPD etc. If we know about Ed Peruta's prior drama, etc. they certainly do given its ready Googleability. They are likely more than adequately represented and have already expended efforts on this front anyway.

The greatest danger we face post-Heller in future pro-gun litigation is most likely not from the antis - but from damage by our 'own' side with new-to-the-issue lawyers tilting at windmills, and ones making a variety of missteps and who are not coordinated with the various knowledgable RKBA attorneys spending years & years on these matters.

Please let the folks with access to good lawyering - or rather, the good lawyers - run these things.

And please see Jason Davis' article in CRPA Firing Line as an excellent treatise on this.

We all know how nearly disastrous Silviera was; yes, one minor fragment had a minor favorable tint, but that's about it. We were tremendously lucky that Silviera didn't go even worse for us, and it took a ton of good lawyering and $$$ to even get back to a less non-horrid situation. It should never have been filed, and teams of outraged gunnies with flaming pitchforks should have shown up on Gorski's doorstep. When Don Kates, Chuck Michel and Dave Kopel (and a few others) end up using such a case as basis for "what NOT to do" exemplars, only someone with severe self-awareness issues would continue to slog on down that path.

And we've also just seen the damage recently done by People v. James on AW matters - so much so that California NRA and CRPA Foundation attorney Chuck Michel is seeking to have this decision depublished. James was run thru by a public defender feeling obligated to raise a Heller-based defense, one who didn't coordinate with knowledgeable gun attorneys, didn't know jack about assault weapons legal history, technical details, regulatory history, etc. It was a "Hail Mary" pass thrown to the court because (s)he felt she was duty bound to raise the claim but didn't have the skills/background to follow thru, nor the grace to seek help (there is a chance she wasn't aware help was available, but...) As Chuck Michel wrote:“But it does give a very important lesson. If you’re not ready to litigate a Second Amendment
case competently and thoroughly, and if you’re not ready to put all the resources into that
litigation that it requires and deserves, Second Amendment issues should not be raised. We
don’t need anymore bad precedent.”"Insane tactical considerations?" Sometimes those are actually strategic. Having a plaintiff without "color" is quite important, and I am confident Peruta or person with similar background would _not_ have made the cut for being a plaintiff in Heller, McDonald, Palmer, Sykes, or Pena cases.

Again, CGF board has been aware of the Peruta case/matter for some time. The fact the case was misrepresented by 'Team Peruta' to us at CGF was most troubling - instead of a basic equal protection claim that TBJ has expertise at running and which they told CGF they were running, they essentially cut & pasted our Sykes case. Why the misrepresentation - first-to-glory seeking? I'm confident Peruta's attorney doesn't have the collective skill and background of the Sykes legal team (Gura & Kilmer).

In this particular case we are indeed very lucky things landed the way they did - so far. Accidental early wins with lawyers not tuned to travel the whole way can be dangerous down the line. And taking someone else's work product for a filing isn't illegal but certainly indicative of, um, "issues".

Luckily the particular danger of this matter is less in this particular case, because it borrowed good foundations (aside plaintiff personal drama) - the larger more worrisome issues is the fact it may embolden other attorneys to try to attack various gun laws without adequate preparation. It's kinda like a kid that played well - "above his head" - at a single music recital and then deciding to go pro on the basis of that.

We CGFers don't care who wins, as long as it's a winner and as long as there's a rational, undisturbed-by-other-forces chance of winning. Honestly, if it had turned out Peruta had a better case and was a better plaintiff and the situation was (overall) better, we'd've jumped on board and helped or supported and/or kill our case, etc. CGF will never do a 'bad case' or low-reward-to-high-risk case just to see "CGF" in lights. In fact, the entire founding of CGF is based on the fact we hope we can dissolve/go away sometime!

[The indeed laudable history Peruta has as an activist and wartime shooter is not terribly relevant. The fact that Peruta can argue he can defend his 'color' is not that relevant either - but I'm betting for most folks looking at his background the term "problem child" comes to mind. And we shoulld not 'reward' activists thru being plaintiffs - plaintiffs need to be chosen for proper attributes standing out from an otherwise ideally fairly neutral background. For example, I and many others here on Calguns are probably terrible plaintiffs for a constitutional gun case - outspoken on a variety of matters that could add tons of color.]

The message we're trying to get across, again, is less in particular about this case itself - as we all kinda lucked out, for now - and just using it as an example of problems that can occur in other cases and which can easily screw us up. Again, this has all the elements for "what not to do" with the happy exception of good luck in the short term and a lucky judge selection.

We need the right cases, done the right way, by the right people, at the right time. Random gun cases by random lawyers don't meet this standard.

What worries me further is that we're gonna have to drive future cases earlier to, I'd hope, 'displace' other such prospective bad cases from rising to the top. In many ways, there could be 'horse races' of good vs. bad cases.

artherd
01-25-2010, 3:57 AM
We CGFers don't care who wins, as long as it's a winner

Exactly - we all lose thousands of dollars whenever we file one of these things, both as a foundation and as individuals donating our time, resources, money, gas, hotel bills, airfare, etc.

We are not in this for the glory - we're in it to win and be forgotten.

tango-52
01-25-2010, 5:52 AM
Jim,
I was never critical of Ed. As someone living in San Diego under the thumb of the Hero of Ruby Ridge, I am ecstatic that there is some activity down here. My only complaint was that deletions several days after the fact destroy the continuity of the discussion. Uncivil behavior should be handled by the moderators. So should wholesale deletions of information, such as occurred in this thread. There are some people who have been on this board for a long time (not Ed) who have made outrageous comments, then deleted them when no one was looking so as to make their critics appear the fool. Having the edit function be short-lived would allow people to correct typos and would encourage posters to keep their vitriol in check if they knew it was going to be there for posterity. With Ed's case here, he could have come back to Kestryll and asked him to delete the posts after things went sideways. Kestryll could then make the call on how he wanted to handle the situation. As it now stands, even those of us who might have supported Ed are out of luck. ;)

dirtnap
01-25-2010, 6:47 AM
I vote Ed for POTUS.

7x57
01-25-2010, 7:16 AM
Accidental early wins with lawyers not tuned to travel the whole way can be dangerous down the line.


Perhaps it is relevant to note a lesson I learned from following a very different kind of case once. Suppose a judge decides he has a real bozo in his court who needs to lose big. Do you think he signals that their case is going down? No...among other things, that sets them up for an easier appeal. What he actually does is bend over backwards to rule in their favor on procedural issues, is generous with discovery, whatever it takes to leave a track record of really giving them every possible chance to make their case. Then at the end he leaves them with not just a loss, but a record that an appeals court will interpret as showing that with every possible advantage, they still did not have a credible case and so there is no reason to accept an appeal.

Still believe that an early procedural win is necessarily reason to dance in the streets?

I make no claim that this is happening in this case--go ask someone with more detailed knowledge of the case and the law. My point is rather that this sort of ruling can signal more than one thing.


What worries me further is that we're gonna have to drive future cases earlier to, I'd hope, 'displace' other such prospective bad cases from rising to the top. In many ways, there could be 'horse races' of good vs. bad cases.

I have always assumed that we are going to lose on issues that we could have won on because of the necessity to deal with ill-conceived cases. And by "lose" I mean *LOSE RIGHTS THAT WE CAN NEVER REGAIN IN THE FORSEEABLE FUTURE,. RIGHTS THAT COULD EASILY HAVE BEEN WON IF OUR SIDE HAD NOT FUMBLED*. Sad reality, but then the perfect is the enemy of the good. We're very lucky that CGF's board appears to be heavily populated by adults who understand that war is the art of the possible.

7x57

Grakken
01-25-2010, 8:37 AM
Dude better not bone our chances. I think it has been said many times that the calguns crew (The real hitters on this site that is) are willing to help (probably for free) this Ed peruta guy. It appears to me that Ed seems to NOT want the help from the folks who know a thing or two about the 2A as well. I gotta ask myself why this ed peruta won't take help from people who share the same goals and are competent in the subject ? The fact that Bill wrote something bordering on TL DR is enough to make me think Ed peruta has declined Calguns offer of help, and repeatedly. Than we have Jim tongue lashing all of us for not backing Ed?

Jim, I don't know you or Ed. I'm not here to judge how you (any of you) are in your personal lives, but this case for better or for worse is going to affect ME/the rest of us in CALIFORNIA. So please excuse the crowd if they dont jump for joy about something that has been deemed a lucky win. It would be one thing if Ed was cooperating. It would give us piece of mind that we had ED AND the CGF on the same page. Instead, i can only imagine that Ed is betting for glory and he is using MY rights as his bargaining chips. So if he *****s the bed, and pisses my right away, or sets it back untold years, then yeah, people will be really pissed.
You also said that this place is the premeir site for gun rights in Ca (or something like that) yet Ed peruta refuses to work with said people? Thats a little ironic don't you think?

Meplat
01-25-2010, 6:53 PM
Very disturbing. Based on what I have seen in this thread, I wonder if Ed has been given a fare chance to work with CGF. I see a lot of innuendo but nothing concrete. It is regrettable that CG does not have some sort of working relationship and thus some input.

Dude better not bone our chances. I think it has been said many times that the calguns crew (The real hitters on this site that is) are willing to help (probably for free) this Ed peruta guy. It appears to me that Ed seems to NOT want the help from the folks who know a thing or two about the 2A as well. I gotta ask myself why this ed peruta won't take help from people who share the same goals and are competent in the subject ? The fact that Bill wrote something bordering on TL DR is enough to make me think Ed peruta has declined Calguns offer of help, and repeatedly. Than we have Jim tongue lashing all of us for not backing Ed?

Jim, I don't know you or Ed. I'm not here to judge how you (any of you) are in your personal lives, but this case for better or for worse is going to affect ME/the rest of us in CALIFORNIA. So please excuse the crowd if they dont jump for joy about something that has been deemed a lucky win. It would be one thing if Ed was cooperating. It would give us piece of mind that we had ED AND the CGF on the same page. Instead, i can only imagine that Ed is betting for glory and he is using MY rights as his bargaining chips. So if he *****s the bed, and pisses my right away, or sets it back untold years, then yeah, people will be really pissed.
You also said that this place is the premeir site for gun rights in Ca (or something like that) yet Ed peruta refuses to work with said people? Thats a little ironic don't you think?

hoffmang
01-25-2010, 6:55 PM
Very disturbing. Based on what I have seen in this thread, I wonder if Ed has been given a fare chance to work with CGF. I see a lot of innuendo but nothing concrete. It is regrettable that CG does not have some sort of working relationship and thus some input.

You do realize that Mr. Peruta deleted all his comments, right?

Also, sometimes not everything is aired in public because one is attempting to not just end a conversation.

-Gene

Meplat
01-25-2010, 7:18 PM
Gene:

Can you assure me that a good faith effort was made to bring Ed " into the fole" so to speak. I will take your word for it.

You do realize that Mr. Peruta deleted all his comments, right?

Also, sometimes not everything is aired in public because one is attempting to not just end a conversation.

-Gene

hoffmang
01-25-2010, 8:14 PM
Gene:

Can you assure me that a good faith effort was made to bring Ed " into the fole" so to speak. I will take your word for it.

Yes. Maybe you skipped over the parts where I explained that it appears CGF was mislead?

Ed and I had a very frank conversation recently about what happened versus what was discussed as what would happen based on both side's conversations.

-Gene

dantodd
01-25-2010, 9:12 PM
Perhaps it is relevant to note a lesson I learned from following a very different kind of case once. Suppose a judge decides he has a real bozo in his court who needs to lose big. Do you think he signals that their case is going down? No...among other things, that sets them up for an easier appeal. What he actually does is bend over backwards to rule in their favor on procedural issues, is generous with discovery, whatever it takes to leave a track record of really giving them every possible chance to make their case. Then at the end he leaves them with not just a loss, but a record that an appeals court will interpret as showing that with every possible advantage, they still did not have a credible case and so there is no reason to accept an appeal.



I believe that's known as "giving them enough rope."

N6ATF
02-10-2010, 9:44 AM
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-10317-San-Diego-County-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2010m2d10-Second-Amendment-lawsuit-takes-aim-at-SD-Sheriff-Gore

7x57
02-10-2010, 10:32 AM
I believe that's known as "giving them enough rope."

Billy Jack reminded me that the lawyer's lingo is "protecting the record," or something like that. But your phrase makes it a lot clearer what it means is going to happen.

7x57

Glock22Fan
02-10-2010, 11:39 AM
Judges are reluctant to ratify claims for dismissal for many reasons. All it means is that you get chance to go forward. The plaintiff and his lawyers can pat themselves on the back, and maybe have a quiet drink -- they are still in the game -- but it is not a reason to pass out the cigars and buy drinks all round. The only decision that really matters is the final one. This case is far from there at present.

I wouldn't mind betting that if someone had the resources to analyze previous settled cases, the decision to dismiss a motion to dismiss would have very little statistical relationship to the final result. Let's face it, any case that comes to trial could go either way, despite the fact that perhaps several MtD's or MSJ's have been rejected at earlier stages.

Those readers who are cheering this as if it was a fantastic win are either ignorant of court procedures or worse.

GuyW
02-10-2010, 12:11 PM
I wouldn't mind betting that if someone had the resources to analyze previous settled cases, the decision to dismiss a motion to dismiss would have very little statistical relationship to the final result.

Anecdotal, but I believe generally true - in civil cases, defeated Motions to Dismiss and Summary Judgement motions, often lead to settlement, because the defendants know that the process now gets more costly....
.

Glock22Fan
02-10-2010, 1:24 PM
Anecdotal, but I believe generally true - in civil cases, defeated Motions to Dismiss and Summary Judgement motions, often lead to settlement, because the defendants know that the process now gets more costly....
.

That makes sense, but in this case there's a lot more riding on it and I suspect the defense isn't that likely to cave in. If they did, it might open the floodgates.

Or, I might be wrong. I was once,




back in 1957 if I remember correctly :D

jnojr
02-11-2010, 3:04 PM
Well, if they give him a permit for the nuisance value... I'll apply, and if turned down, sue them on the same grounds. Hopefully, 100 other people would do the same thing.

San Diego has a particularly odious requirement for issuing CCWs (most of the time, for peons, at least) that isn't going to be very defensible in court. It really stretches the definition of "good cause". I really doubt the County is going to want to try to defend that policy.

As to the rest of it... while there may very well be concerns about timing, issues raised, etc. I cannot help but catch a whiff of the same "not invented here" mentality that drives the NRA in Second Amendment cases. If everyone listened to the NRA, there would have been no meaningful challenges... any such lawsuit would have been "too risky" and the potential consequences "too dire". Sometimes, you have to reach down, grab a handful, and jump.

It seems to me that, even if the residency challenge fails, the attack on "good cause" is a separate issue. And if the courts are going to decide that "good cause" can be an arbitrary concept that differs from one jurisdiction to another with no problem in the eyes of the law, there is no amount of plaintiff-shopping and legal preparation and groundwork-laying that can overcome such a leap across logic.

I guess we'll see.

AdiosTony
02-11-2010, 4:54 PM
too much to read on my phone....


cliff notes anyone?
thanks

Meplat
02-11-2010, 5:24 PM
You should not assume that that wasn't the case.

-Gene

I see.