PDA

View Full Version : (CRPA) Peruta v. San Diego: Motion to Amend Complaint Granted


Gray Peterson
06-25-2010, 10:03 PM
Motion on Leave to Amend Complaint Granted (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.casd.308678/gov.uscourts.casd.308678.24.0.pdf)

Approved Amended Complaint (http://ia341314.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.casd.308678/gov.uscourts.casd.308678.25.0.pdf)

Great news, right on the eve of McDonald!

stitchnicklas
06-25-2010, 10:17 PM
looks like a good trend might start i hope

LazyBoy
06-25-2010, 10:25 PM
That would be nice

CCWFacts
06-25-2010, 10:27 PM
That is great news! I was wondering about that. I just now read the amended complaint and those are some fantastic plaintiffs. Retired abortion doctor, retired Navy officer, etc. Anyone reading about those plaintiffs would think it's nuts to deny them a CCW. I also liked that one who magically had a CCW while he was a member of the sheriff's posse, and then magically no longer had good cause when he stopped paying his sheriff's posse dues, even though his circumstances hadn't changed.

Does this have any impact on possibly averting the Gorski train wreck? The Gorski situation is my biggest fear right now, as an uninformed spectator to this whole thing.

Gray Peterson
06-25-2010, 10:52 PM
That is great news! I was wondering about that. I just now read the amended complaint and those are some fantastic plaintiffs. Retired abortion doctor, retired Navy officer, etc. Anyone reading about those plaintiffs would think it's nuts to deny them a CCW. I also liked that one who magically had a CCW while he was a member of the sheriff's posse, and then magically no longer had good cause when he stopped paying his sheriff's posse dues, even though his circumstances hadn't changed.

Does this have any impact on possibly averting the Gorski train wreck? The Gorski situation is my biggest fear right now, as an uninformed spectator to this whole thing.

Gorski's Mehl and Rothery appeals court cases are on hold pending Nordyke en banc, same with the San Francisco District Court case (Pizzo v. Newsom). This case would have no effect and there is no way to avoid a "train-wreck" if the courts decide to be dishonest.

Paladin
06-25-2010, 10:57 PM
Perhaps this case should be added to:
http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Main_Page#Important_Cases

jb7706
06-25-2010, 11:25 PM
Gorski's Mehl and Rothery appeals court cases are on hold pending Nordyke en banc...

Just how much damage could he do? I guess that could only be answered by a ruling one way or the other.

Now that I think about it if Gorski wins has will be encouraged to continue his suits. And that will likely hurt us. If he loses, it will hurt us. Wow, no way out here is there?

Back to topic, this is great stuff to read. It's obvious that one of these cases will eventually make it to a point where all of our lives will become better. I only wish I could afford to donate more to CGF, but glad that what little I can will be put to good use.

Anchors
06-26-2010, 12:46 AM
Motion on Leave to Amend Complaint Granted (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.casd.308678/gov.uscourts.casd.308678.24.0.pdf)

Approved Amended Complaint (http://ia341314.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.casd.308678/gov.uscourts.casd.308678.25.0.pdf)

Great news, right on the eve of McDonald!

I like the text of the amended complaint.
Good read!

thayne
06-26-2010, 1:43 AM
I like item #71 :D

press1280
06-26-2010, 2:59 AM
Good strategy by Peruta's team. The applicants cover a wide range of plantiffs-those who have been threatened, those who have had CCWs in the past. The one who got a CCW by being an honorary deputy sheriff has to take the cake. The guy stops paying dues and his "good cause" suddenly isn't "good cause" anymore? This seems like it should blow up the whole "discretionary" CCW scheme, not just by the 2A, but the sheer dishonesty and corruption that has been associated with it, not just in CA, but also the other few states still using this scheme.

Just out of curiosity, as far as along the timeline in the grand scheme, is Peruta's case farther along than Sykes?

AIMSMALL
06-26-2010, 3:41 AM
Wow, very good case against Gore I think, I'd like to read what the defense lawyers have got down on paper at this point in thier attempt to rebut the plantiffs alligations.

Kharn
06-26-2010, 3:53 AM
I love the former posse member's addition, the sheriff's going to be doing a lot of wiggling about that one.

Left Coast Conservative
06-26-2010, 5:03 AM
If the plaintiffs can prove the points alleged in the complaint, then prior case law blows the defendants case out of the water. See http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=58468 for an explanation.

In short, it is illegal for the sheriff not to take an application for CCW and give that application a fair evaluation. They may still deny for lack of "good cause"', but they must accept the application.

yellowfin
06-26-2010, 6:08 AM
Did I see a reference in there about an application to get an application? That's so 3rd world/scam like.

command_liner
06-26-2010, 6:29 AM
Very well played. Thank you for all that have worked on it.

The key phrase is the last line of page 5 of the court's grant. The "compound and
confuse" language summarized the position of the county. The county thinks that
the rule of man should apply, not the rule of law. If there was a simple,
understandable law, there would be no compounding and no confusion.

But, in fact, there is no one law that every man can understand. The rules
are applied by the sheriff however he want to apply the rules. In my limited
understanding of the elaborate dance that is played in the courts, this one
phrase sounds like an invitation for a Motion for Summary Judgment.

After a win in McDonald, a MSJ might be in order.

hoffmang
06-26-2010, 9:01 AM
Motions for leave to amend are basically automatic so don't read too much into that. However, having CRPAF and others join means that the case can't be so easily mooted. I certainly like the doctor's case for example.

-Gene

Window_Seat
06-26-2010, 9:46 AM
Perhaps this case should be added to:
http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Main_Page#Important_Cases

Agreed, and I could then link it in my sig line (if I could squeeze it in).

Erik.

CCWFacts
06-26-2010, 10:34 AM
Gorski's Mehl and Rothery appeals court cases are on hold pending Nordyke en banc, same with the San Francisco District Court case (Pizzo v. Newsom). This case would have no effect and there is no way to avoid a "train-wreck" if the courts decide to be dishonest.

I don't really understand all that is going on, but from my ignorant level of understanding, Gorski is my worst fear. I'm afraid he may somehow delay CCW reform in this state for years, or even foreclose it forever. I don't know how realistic that is but it's my fear.

hoffmang
06-26-2010, 10:53 AM
I don't really understand all that is going on, but from my ignorant level of understanding, Gorski is my worst fear. I'm afraid he may somehow delay CCW reform in this state for years, or even foreclose it forever. I don't know how realistic that is but it's my fear.

It's a valid fear. One of his not so good CCW cases is in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. If he loses it before we can get any of the cases out of District Courts then we could be held up in the 9th and would need to create a circuit split out of other circuits and hope for a SCOTUS grant...

-Gene

CCWFacts
06-26-2010, 11:29 AM
It's a valid fear. One of his not so good CCW cases is in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. If he loses it before we can get any of the cases out of District Courts then we could be held up in the 9th and would need to create a circuit split out of other circuits and hope for a SCOTUS grant...

In other words, it could delay it by years, or forever. That would be awful, to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

If Gorski wants to be a real hero, he would bring the CalGuns attorneys in as co-counsel and amend the complaint if possible.

Gray Peterson
06-26-2010, 11:31 AM
I don't really understand all that is going on, but from my ignorant level of understanding, Gorski is my worst fear. I'm afraid he may somehow delay CCW reform in this state for years, or even foreclose it forever. I don't know how realistic that is but it's my fear.

If there was a Gorski-type litigating cases post Plessy, there would still be "separate but equal" in the south.

I wish I was joking.

CCWFacts
06-26-2010, 11:56 AM
It's a valid fear. One of his not so good CCW cases is in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. If he loses it before we can get any of the cases out of District Courts then we could be held up in the 9th and would need to create a circuit split out of other circuits and hope for a SCOTUS grant...

IANAL and I'm pretty ignorant of such things, but...

What about filing a CCW suit in a Federal enclave that's within the 9th? There are quite a few: Guam, the CNMI, and some others. I'm pretty sure these are may-issue (but no-issue in practice), at the discretion of the local potentate.

7x57
06-26-2010, 12:35 PM
I thought the Pacific territories were pretty much a Constitution-free zone in actual practice as far as gun rights are concerned?

7x57

CCWFacts
06-26-2010, 12:38 PM
I thought the Pacific territories were pretty much a Constitution-free zone in actual practice as far as gun rights are concerned?

Yes, absolutely. They may allow 22lr rifles or something and that's about all you get there.

And they have no state law. Their jurisdictional issues are complex. CNMI and Guam are under quite different "ownership" structures. IANAL so what all this means is far beyond my understanding, but I'm guessing that having no state law, and being direct Federal enclaves, and being Constitution-free zones, within the 9th Circuit, might be something we could use?

Gray Peterson
06-26-2010, 12:45 PM
I thought the Pacific territories were pretty much a Constitution-free zone in actual practice as far as gun rights are concerned?

7x57

Not true. We have some more recent Supreme Court case law which states that US citizens and nationals have Bill of Rights protections regardless of where they reside in the United States, including insular. Myself and someone else have taken on this project. The problem is that unless I know people who are visiting these territory and want to possess/carry handguns, it's difficult for the local governments there to tangle.

johnny_22
06-26-2010, 12:58 PM
I had heard that business owners in San Diego County were granted License to Carry Concealed. Why was the first example denied? Very inconsistent.

7x57
06-26-2010, 1:12 PM
I'm guessing that having no state law, and being direct Federal enclaves, and being Constitution-free zones, within the 9th Circuit, might be something we could use?

My gut feeling is no, but there is no reason whatsoever to believe my gut feeling is of any use on such a thing.

It would be interesting to know if there is any gun-rights activity in those places at all, either native, permanent residents from stateside, or whatever. My guess is that the culture isn't right, but I don't know. As a very slightly similar situation, so far as I can tell Indians don't participate in the lawful gun-rights movement much--if they feel strongly about it, they keep very interesting illegal toys on the res, secure in the knowledge that LE isn't likely to ever mess with them. I wonder if anything similar happens with the pacific territories?

7x57

CCWFacts
06-26-2010, 1:23 PM
I have a little bit of experience and knowledge of those areas, so take this FWIW:

It would be interesting to know if there is any gun-rights activity in those places at all, either native,

There's none from the natives. The natives can have a pretty rough and physical culture, including traditions of brawling. They do not want gun ownership.

permanent residents from stateside,

I'm sure some Haole perm. residents grumble about not being able to go shooting, but all they can do (at this point) is grumble. They have to avoid rocking the boat. There's lots of corruption and outsiders are always outsiders there.

if they feel strongly about it, they keep very interesting illegal toys on the res, secure in the knowledge that LE isn't likely to ever mess with them.

That wouldn't surprise me.

I wonder if anything similar happens with the pacific territories?

I doubt it. Indians on reservations know that cops are unlikely to mess with them. On the islands, it's the reverse. The cops there are highly corrupt and can do whatever they want. There probably are a few powerful leaders who can (and perhaps do) keep illegal guns there and know that the cops won't / can't touch them. But that must be very rare. And these leaders may have gotten themselves deputized or whatever to bypass the gun laws. If they even want guns. I think that their cultures just aren't into the idea of possessing guns.

7x57
06-26-2010, 1:48 PM
There's none from the natives. The natives can have a pretty rough and physical culture, including traditions of brawling. They do not want gun ownership.


Which brings up the very politically correct reality that the particular notion of the armed citizen that the Second Amendment is designed to protect is peculiarly British. The founders didn't actually expect it to work for everyone until they acculturated enough to internalize the bits of culture that make it work.

Being Incorrect enough to know that, I don't advocate pushing gun rights on any culture that doesn't already desire it. Tradition is far more important than post-moderns like to admit.


I'm sure some Haole perm. residents grumble about not being able to go shooting, but all they can do (at this point) is grumble. They have to avoid rocking the boat. There's lots of corruption and outsiders are always outsiders there.


Sounds like Gray has some ideas in that regard, and his ideas generally make sense, but unfortunately I have no plans to visit the Pacific.

One way that would interest me theoretically would be for cruising sailors who wish to carry arms (a very good idea in many waters) and want to avoid trouble in port. But few would make land only where the US Constitution has any relevance at all, and that's what you'd need. Maybe passage between Hawaii and the NW Pacific, or island-hopping in the Northern Marianas would be likely scenarios that would avoid issues of international law.


I doubt it. Indians on reservations know that cops are unlikely to mess with them. On the islands, it's the reverse.


Ah, makes sense.


I think that their cultures just aren't into the idea of possessing guns.

Given the precise technological development and culture at contact, and the recency of strong contact, that makes perfect sense.

That said--as far as I'm concerned no amount of cultural sensitivity means a hill of beans as far as abrogating the rights of US citizens in US territory. The Second Amendment comes along with US rule, and I won't give that up voluntarily for anyone or anything. The only *legal* way to stop me carrying (as opposed to the many, many illegal ways) would be complete local independence and sovereignty.

Or asking nicely after acknowledging my absolute legal right, I'm not always crabby and unreasonable. Just usually. :D

7x57

CCWFacts
06-26-2010, 2:11 PM
Which brings up the very politically correct reality that the particular notion of the armed citizen that the Second Amendment is designed to protect is peculiarly British. The founders didn't actually expect it to work for everyone until they acculturated enough to internalize the bits of culture that make it work.

The fact is, these islands had incredibly bloody war-like cultures before the arrival of Europeans. They basically used heavy wooden clubs to beat each other to death. Winners got to eat losers and take their wives. That all ended when the Europeans came but they do have a tradition of brawling. If that same behavior persisted, but using guns, they would wipe themselves out. And armed society is a polite society. As a corollary, you don't have brawling in armed societies. A brawl is used to determine social hierarchy and introducing a gun into it wrecks the whole thing.

Unfortunately, there's also a problem with rape. There are probably some women who would like something that lets them say "no" to a 300 lbs guy with years of brawling experience. But they don't have the political power to do anything about this. Voting on the islands goes purely on patronage issues. There's probably some calculation as well - of course rape is awful, but shooting and killing someone who has been a neighbor for generations has a lot more long-term consequences on a small island than it does in a big city, even if the shooting is 100% morally and legally justified.

Gray Peterson
06-26-2010, 2:20 PM
The fact is, these islands had incredibly bloody war-like cultures before the arrival of Europeans. They basically used heavy wooden clubs to beat each other to death. Winners got to eat losers and take their wives. That all ended when the Europeans came but they do have a tradition of brawling. If that same behavior persisted, but using guns, they would wipe themselves out. And armed society is a polite society. As a corollary, you don't have brawling in armed societies. A brawl is used to determine social hierarchy and introducing a gun into it wrecks the whole thing.

Unfortunately, there's also a problem with rape. There are probably some women who would like something that lets them say "no" to a 300 lbs guy with years of brawling experience. But they don't have the political power to do anything about this. Voting on the islands goes purely on patronage issues. There's probably some calculation as well - of course rape is awful, but shooting and killing someone who has been a neighbor for generations has a lot more long-term consequences on a small island than it does in a big city, even if the shooting is 100% morally and legally justified.

The last paragraph is rather telling. Cultural or no, an American citizen or national has a right to possess a handgun in the home for self defense, and also outside of the home too. Women especially need this.

Also, would holding up a sign opposing the territorial governor get you arrested? It still would be a 1A violation, and challengeable under 42USC1983.

CCWFacts
06-26-2010, 2:53 PM
The last paragraph is rather telling. Cultural or no, an American citizen or national has a right to possess a handgun in the home for self defense, and also outside of the home too.

I agree absolutely. I'm just pointing out one of the reasons why women there might choose not to defend themselves. It's awful, but that is an unfortunate side of island life. When people live together for generations, and there is no mobility, and everyone knows everyone, and everyone is related somehow, there's a lot more reluctance to use lethal force for self-defense. If a dispute gets resolved with a brawl, the parties involved can move on from it eventually and continue living as neighbors and family members. If that same dispute were ended with one side using lethal force for legitimate self-defense, it might protect that person in that moment but they would have a lot of problems for the rest of their lives. That's probably why gun rights have no appeal on these islands. It can be hard for us mainlanders to realize how small and immobile the world of island life is.

For better or for worse, however, they are part of the United States and they are under our Constitution which now includes an individual right to armed self-defense. Cultures need to adapt to external circumstances sometimes. In another area, the various island cultures have also had a hard time adapting to readily available alcohol and supermarkets. Life isn't easy, things change, people need to adapt to the world sometimes.

Also, would holding up a sign opposing the territorial governor get you arrested? It still would be a 1A violation, and challengeable under 42USC1983.

I was in the CNMI once during an election campaign and there were people holding up signs on all the roads. Elections are vigorously contested but I think they come down purely to family and patronage. I don't have any numbers and I'm too lazy to search right now but I bet voter turnout in the CNMI is higher than it is in the mainland.

Paladin
06-26-2010, 2:53 PM
FWIW, IIRC, there's a large Samoan/Chamoan/Pacific Islander "community" in East Palo Alto. I think there's also one in the East Bay, maybe Oakland or San Leandro. I'm sure you could find out w/a few calls and/or googling. You could probably find details by searching because it was mentioned a year or two ago when a major storm hit their islands and the news spoke of how many were living in the Bay Area.

They might be able to reach out to that/those communities and they might know someone back "home" who'd be interested. Or maybe one of them is planning on moving home for some reason, but wants to take back with them their 2nd A RKBA that they discovered in, of all places, California.

joedogboy
06-26-2010, 5:41 PM
It is especially nice that it clearly addresses the "open secret" that bribes are frequently involved in the CCW process.

Once it is shown that those who contribute to the Sheriff get special favors regarding their CCW applications, the Sheriff needs to go to prison for a long, long time. This would send a clear message to other Sheriffs to cease and desist these illegal shakedowns.

N6ATF
06-26-2010, 8:53 PM
If he won't go to prison for conspiracy to commit summary execution, why would he go down for bribery? Though since there's no statute of limitations for murder, there's still time, I guess.

7x57
06-26-2010, 8:53 PM
If that same behavior persisted, but using guns, they would wipe themselves out. And armed society is a polite society. As a corollary, you don't have brawling in armed societies. A brawl is used to determine social hierarchy and introducing a gun into it wrecks the whole thing.


I'm not convinced that you can't have this--what you require is culturally accepted rules that regulate weapons usage. Take European duelling--it was rarely done with the most efficient weapons, at least after the Middle Ages; light polearms dominate blades, for example, but that didn't matter because there were rules and one was that you don't bring a bill or poleaxe to a sword duel. If that is possible, there is no reason unarmed combat cannot be the means of socially honorable combat--in fact, we often had that as an effective rule in the US. I think I recall stories of disputes at sea where a mate took the knives and let the sailors settle their dispute "with the weapons God gave them" (though even there it is clear there were social rules, such as what constituted ending the fight). I believe that to have been a common occurrence in other similar social settings.

Whether they can adapt to such things is one thing, but it certainly can and has been done many times.

The point, though, is that there is no Prime Directive in the Constitution, and no cultural sensitivity provision. US citizens have the legal right to armed self-defense on US soil, and if the law were followed it would simply not matter what the local custom was. I'm not obliged to follow custom if I choose not to, but the law is obliged to protect my right to self-defense.

So do we think domestic violence groups will join with us in creating a fund to supply double-action revolvers for women in US overseas possessions who want them? How could they not? :43:

7x57

7x57
06-26-2010, 8:56 PM
It can be hard for us mainlanders to realize how small and immobile the world of island life is.


Maybe for you city boys, but I've been in small towns with a lot of people who have lived their whole life there. ;)

7x57

CCWFacts
06-26-2010, 9:55 PM
(They could use dueling rules)

I dunno - it's hard for me to imagine. But maybe! Maybe it would be like sumo wrestling.

The point, though, is that there is no Prime Directive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Directive) in the Constitution, and no cultural sensitivity provision. US citizens have the legal right to armed self-defense on US soil, and if the law were followed it would simply not matter what the local custom was.

Absolutely right, and I'm happy about it. It's not fair, but the fact is, a certain set of Europeans founded America, and they had certain values, and one byproduct of those values was vast economic and military power, and so now a few other pieces of the world, such as the CNMI and Guam and Hawaii, must live under our legal system, and rights in our system have no regard for other cultures or traditions.

I simply do no care that every single native inhabitant of Saipan would despise the idea of me carrying a gun on their island. Their island is under the authority of the United States Constitution and therefore they have no say in the matter. If they don't like it, they should have invented atomic weapons and capitalism before we did.

So do we think domestic violence groups will join with us in creating a fund to supply double-action revolvers for women in US overseas possessions who want them? How could they not?

Haha. The theory is sound!

The place where all this matters is not in the remote islands, but in Hawaii, where there are real problems of crime (including rape), the perpetrators are often BIG, and there are enough people there who understand the idea of armed self-defense. I believe that we will have incorporation on Monday, and that I (and all other qualified people) will have a right to keep and bear arms while in Guam and Saipan, and the locals won't be able to stop me from doing it, but they will not develop any interest in owning guns themselves.

Crom
06-29-2010, 2:17 PM
Perhaps this case should be added to:
http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Main_Page#Important_Cases

Yes. I second this suggestion.

Gorski's Mehl and Rothery appeals court cases are on hold pending Nordyke en banc, same with the San Francisco District Court case (Pizzo v. Newsom). This case would have no effect and there is no way to avoid a "train-wreck" if the courts decide to be dishonest.

Who is this Gorski? And does anybody know why he hasn't been brought into the fold?

It's a valid fear. One of his not so good CCW cases is in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. If he loses it before we can get any of the cases out of District Courts then we could be held up in the 9th and would need to create a circuit split out of other circuits and hope for a SCOTUS grant...

-Gene

Has anyone from CGF reached out to Gorski?

bwiese
06-29-2010, 2:41 PM
Has anyone from CGF reached out to Gorski?

Gene had and there was a whole thread some time ago with a very unprofessional stream of invective from Gorski.

Future briefs in Gorski cases may actually even use a spell checker.

ke6guj
06-29-2010, 2:56 PM
Gene had and there was a whole thread some time ago with a very unprofessional stream of invective from Gorski.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=184321

Crom
06-29-2010, 3:09 PM
edit: post moved because it's off topic.

7x57
06-29-2010, 3:21 PM
I dunno - it's hard for me to imagine. But maybe! Maybe it would be like sumo wrestling.


It's been done. Speaking from extremely superficial knowledge, something vaguely similar appears to be the origin of Brazilian Ju-Jutsu, for example.


I simply do no care that every single native inhabitant of Saipan would despise the idea of me carrying a gun on their island. Their island is under the authority of the United States Constitution and therefore they have no say in the matter. If they don't like it, they should have invented atomic weapons and capitalism before we did.


A tad blunt, but those are precisely the facts.


The place where all this matters is not in the remote islands, but in Hawaii, where there are real problems of crime (including rape), the perpetrators are often BIG, and there are enough people there who understand the idea of armed self-defense.


Hmm, I've seen some sumo-sized Samoans, and I've heard reports of guys with so much body fat that police 9mms underpentrated....OK, make those revolvers .44 mag or even .580 Ruger. :D I don't care how big you are, .44 mag can be loaded with enough penetration to slow you down.

That said, I feel a bit guilty about giving that much gun to someone of say, Japanese descent who is 110 lbs soaking wet. Perhaps we need a catalog so the women can choose their firearm. :D


I believe that we will have incorporation on Monday, and that I (and all other qualified people) will have a right to keep and bear arms while in Guam and Saipan, and the locals won't be able to stop me from doing it, but they will not develop any interest in owning guns themselves.

Unfortunately, political correctness would be so strong that a lot of judges would flagrantly violate the law to avoid cultural offense.

Me, I'd carry an AR over my shoulder in the local temple if that's the only way to get my rights respected.

7x57

dantodd
06-29-2010, 4:11 PM
Hmm, I've seen some sumo-sized Samoans, and I've heard reports of guys with so much body fat that police 9mms underpentrated....OK, make those revolvers .44 mag or even .580 Ruger. :D I don't care how big you are, .44 mag can be loaded with enough penetration to slow you down.

That said, I feel a bit guilty about giving that much gun to someone of say, Japanese descent who is 110 lbs soaking wet. Perhaps we need a catalog so the women can choose their firearm. :D

Laying the ground work for your "SMG/Machine Pistols are required by some for self-defense" lawsuit?