PDA

View Full Version : Peruta v. County of San Diego


tango-52
07-28-2010, 8:34 AM
Mandatory Settlement Conference -

In Two Weeks!!!

http://ia341315.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.casd.308678/gov.uscourts.casd.308678.18.0.pdf

Other details here:
http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Peruta_v._County_of_San_Diego

loather
07-28-2010, 9:04 AM
I hope when the county loses, Gore locks himself in his office and starts crying like Alison did when DOJ lost the ability to list new AWs. :)

gun toting monkeyboy
07-28-2010, 9:09 AM
So what does this mean, for those of us of the non-legal crowd?

Gray Peterson
07-28-2010, 9:10 AM
I don't see Peruta and the organizational plaintiffs settling for anything less than total capitulation of the county to their demands.

nick
07-28-2010, 9:10 AM
Since the only plaintiff is an individual, issuing him a permit would settle the case, right?

nick
07-28-2010, 9:11 AM
I don't see Peruta and the organizational plaintiffs settling for anything less than total capitulation of the county to their demands.

Am I missing something? Were the organizational plaintiffs added to the complaint? When?

pullnshoot25
07-28-2010, 9:12 AM
I think this is going to go all the way...

tango-52
07-28-2010, 9:19 AM
I think the Sheriff can agree to the terms, or the judge can issue a summary judgement granting the plaintiffs request. I wonder if the summary judgement would occur at the end of the settlement conference. All in all, things are really looking up for CCWs.

Gray Peterson
07-28-2010, 9:34 AM
Am I missing something? Were the organizational plaintiffs added to the complaint? When?

Yes they were. Judge Gonzalez approved the amended complaint the Friday before McDonald.

Remember that if Gore continues this, his CCW related activities are subject to a lot of scrutiny. It is in Gore's best interest to settle, as sheriffs do not get unseated over CCW issues either way (see Orange County Sheriff's Office).

nick
07-28-2010, 9:34 AM
I think this is going to go all the way...

He likely is, but isn't the ball in Gore's court, and he can moot the complaint by just issuing the permit? That's why I was asking about organizational plaintiffs.

tiki
07-28-2010, 9:36 AM
Yeah, I don't think this is going to go anywhere. If they agree to issue a permit to Peruta, what does that do for the rest of the state? The suit goes away, doesn't it?

Gray Peterson
07-28-2010, 9:38 AM
He likely is, but isn't the ball in Gore's court, and he can moot the complaint by just issuing the permit? That's why I was asking about organizational plaintiffs.

The organization plaintiff is the CRPA Foundation.

Again, I don't see anything being settled for anything less than a stipulated federal consent decree and total capitulation by Sheriff Gore and the County.

Nick1236
07-28-2010, 9:43 AM
This suit seeks to do two things.

1.Seeks to either find "good cause" as unconstitutional or establish "self defense" sufficient for the California's "Good Cause" requirement.

2.County residency requirements must be changed. Full or part time residents should be treated equally.

So if it goes all the way, self defense would be considered "good cause" there by allowing anyone capable of owning a hangun, the right to CCW? Stupid question i know but wanted to confirm. And by "part time" residents does that mean one could travel to a more accepting county and apply for CCW there becuase they would be "part time" residents?

N6ATF
07-28-2010, 9:47 AM
No written confession for Ruby Ridge? :rolleyes: :angelsad2:

gunn
07-28-2010, 9:50 AM
So if it goes all the way, self defense would be considered "good cause" there by allowing anyone capable of owning a hangun, the right to CCW? Stupid question i know but wanted to confirm. And by "part time" residents does that mean one could travel to a more accepting county and apply for CCW there becuase they would be "part time" residents?

I don't think it will work that smoothly. Unless you can claim an address in the issuing county, how can you establish that you are a resident --- full or part time? Now, for example, if you were a UCSD student and had an address in the county 1/2 the time, that would make you a part time resident.

-g

Window_Seat
07-28-2010, 9:50 AM
Yeah, I don't think this is going to go anywhere. If they agree to issue a permit to Peruta, what does that do for the rest of the state? The suit goes away, doesn't it?

^^+1 for this question please^^

Otherwise, if this is true, then we solely depend on Sykes, or Sykes & Palmer?

Erik.

Gray Peterson
07-28-2010, 9:50 AM
Yeah, I don't think this is going to go anywhere. If they agree to issue a permit to Peruta, what does that do for the rest of the state? The suit goes away, doesn't it?

It does, but again CRPA Foundation is there to guard the interest of CRPA's membership who reside in San Diego County. They are now plaintiffs and they have an interest in fixing it for everyone who resides in the county, so merely issuing licenses to the denied individual parties will not fly. Remember that San Diego County is 3.2 million people. If they settle out and they get San Diego to issue for personal protection/self defense, no restrictions, no more bad treatment of part time residents and so on, enforceable via the federal court system, a future sheriff will not really be able to get out from under it later.

A plaintiff cannot continue to pursue a case against a defendant if the defendant admits fault and is willing to sign a case giving everything you possibly want. That eliminates the controversy at hand and it's a waste of the court's resources.

That decision, however, is solely with Sheriff Gore.

nick
07-28-2010, 10:06 AM
The organization plaintiff is the CRPA Foundation.

Again, I don't see anything being settled for anything less than a stipulated federal consent decree and total capitulation by Sheriff Gore and the County.

I didn't know they were added as a plaintiff. That changes everything.

WatchMan
07-28-2010, 10:07 AM
That decision, however, is solely with Sheriff Gore.

I wonder what he's thinking... :43:

Purple K
07-28-2010, 10:13 AM
How soon will this effect the other 57 Sheriffs?

N6ATF
07-28-2010, 10:14 AM
I wonder what he's thinking... :43:

That it's taxpayer's money (practically unlimited resource, which has, and will continue to be, raised without the taxpayers' vote) he has to burn all the way to SCOTUS.

BlindRacer
07-28-2010, 10:23 AM
How soon will this effect the other 57 Sheriffs?

^This

Gray Peterson
07-28-2010, 10:32 AM
How soon will this effect the other 57 Sheriffs?

When, Gore's head, figuratively, is on a pike to show to the other sheriffs.

Btw, just to clarify: I have no special knowledge of Peruta's case. This is just observational behavior of someone who A) Is currently suing for a CHL currently and has knowledge of 42USC 1983 and B) Is supposedly good at reading and analyzing court filings. I have no connection, none, with CRPA Foundation or any of the plaintiffs. These are purely my logical deduction skills.

hill billy
07-28-2010, 10:33 AM
Wow. Crossing my fingers for a positive outcome.

Crom
07-28-2010, 10:35 AM
This will go all the way and it could fix carry for us all. The sheriff had has chance and he blew it.

Gray explained it quite well. CRPA signed on to the case for the good us all.

The amended complaint reads as follows:

In this suit, the CRPA FOUNDATION represents the interests of its many citizen and taxpayer members and members of its related association the California Rifle and Pistol Association who reside in San Diego and who wish to obtain CCWs, but who have been denied CCWs for supposed lack of residence, or supposed lack of "good cause," or who have been told by the Sheriff's Office not to bother applying for a CCW becuase of the aforsaid reasons. The CRPA FOUNDATION and the individuals whose interests are represented by the CRPA FOUNDATION are and will be affected by Defendant's failure to issue CCW licenses according to law.The protected motion will shield discovery from public disclosure but once a trial date is set it's on.

The mandatory settlement conference will not decide the case. This case will most likely go to trial and not be fully settled until March-June of 2011.

If it does go to trial, I am going to go and watch provided that the judge allows it.

OleCuss
07-28-2010, 10:41 AM
When, Gore's head, figuratively, is on a pike to show to the other sheriffs.

Btw, just to clarify: I have no special knowledge of Peruta's case. This is just observational behavior of someone who A) Is currently suing for a CHL currently and has knowledge of 42USC 1983 and B) Is supposedly good at reading and analyzing court filings. I have no connection, none, with CRPA Foundation or any of the plaintiffs. These are purely my logical deduction skills.

Thank you for all the caveats, but I consider you to be very good at figuring this kind of thing out and I really appreciate your thoughts.

WatchMan
07-28-2010, 10:44 AM
If it does go to trial, I am going to go and watch provided that the judge allows it.

If I can spare the time I will likely try and show up as well. Hmmm, I've never been in a court room without a speeding ticket in my hand...

Window_Seat
07-28-2010, 10:44 AM
.

If it does go to trial, I am going to go and watch provided that the judge allows it.

IANAL or a court expert, but I am aware that you can go and "sit in" as a spectator in a trial as a member of the public.

Erik.

Gray Peterson
07-28-2010, 11:06 AM
This will go all the way and it could fix carry for us all. The sheriff had has chance and he blew it.

Gray explained it quite well. CRPA signed on to the case for the good us all.

The amended complaint reads as follows:

The protected motion will shield discovery from public disclosure but once a trial date is set it's on.

The mandatory settlement conference will not decide the case. This case will most likely go to trial and not be fully settled until March-June of 2011.

If it does go to trial, I am going to go and watch provided that the judge allows it.

Well, that's the thing, the sheriff does have a chance to settle out on August 11th. That's why it's a mandatory settlement attendance. I don't see the plaintiffs conceding anything to the defendants, so it'll be up to Gore to choose between continuing to fight and laying off more employees.

Remember, folks, every level of government in California is BROKE. Be prepared for the possibility, however slight, that we'll win on a stipulated consent agreement. Plus to this is that 3 million people are freed from "may-issue" on a pretty immediate basis.

tango-52
07-28-2010, 11:11 AM
Well, that's the thing, the sheriff does have a chance to settle out on August 11th. That's why it's a mandatory settlement attendance. I don't see the plaintiffs conceding anything to the defendants, so it'll be up to Gore to choose between continuing to fight and laying off more employee.

Remember, folks, every level of government in California is BROKE.

We need to hit them while they're hurting and take back as much as we can before they recover.

Crom
07-28-2010, 11:20 AM
I think this is going to go all the way...

The primary reason I know this will go all the way is because of Ed. Ed was wronged by the Sheriffs office. They were given an opportunity to correct themselves and they refused to do so. I really don't think the Sheriff will settle... [Referring to Gray's note about the Mandatory settlement conference.]

An interesting fact about Ed. Back in 2002 or so, Ed bought a pre-cooked chicken at the supermarket. He went home and when he looked at the receipt and it showed a $0.48 charge for sales tax. He thought this was wrong so he looked up the Connecticut statue for sales tax and it clearly showed that tax should not be charged for pre-cooked food that is not consumed on the store premises.

Ed called the supermarket and talked to a store manager and got nowhere, so he contacted the stores corporate HQ and told them their computers were messed up... I think he tried to correct it through the Conn. State agency which is responsible for setting taxes. When he could make no further progress with phone calls Ed hired an attorney and sued the supermarket. It turned into a class action lawsuit involving six-grocery store chains. Ultimately through the suit it recovered a few million dollars in illegal-collected state taxes.

In the end, a state senator, lieutenant governor, and the Conn state Attorneys General got involved to fix it all. It took two years for it conclude.

That is Ed. If it's illegal or unconstitutional and it affects him in some way he'll fight it. Go Ed!

Here is a video (http://www.ourrockyhill.com/Videos/Press%20Conference%20Nov.%202004.wmv) I found which shows a press conference about the ill-collected taxes.

If I can spare the time I will likely try and show up as well. Hmmm, I've never been in a court room without a speeding ticket in my hand...

It would be my privilege to watch. I hope you can make it too. :)

IANAL or a court expert, but I am aware that you can go and "sit in" as a spectator in a trial as a member of the public.

Erik.

Yup. That's the plan. I can't wait. :D

In the end, I don't care how carry gets fixed in California, only that it does get fixed.

Gray Peterson
07-28-2010, 11:22 AM
We need to hit them while they're hurting and take back as much as we can before they recover.

As you well know, I love figuratively kicking anti-self defense sheriffs while they're down....

Again, figuratively speaking.

Crom
07-28-2010, 11:29 AM
We need to hit them while they're hurting and take back as much as we can before they recover.

In my opinion Gore does not care how much the court case will cost the County. Did you know that Gore just received a $10,400 year pay raise (http://www.10news.com/news/24406504/detail.html)?

I love figuratively kicking anti-self defense sheriffs while they're down on the ground....

Again, figuratively speaking.

I feel the same way. Anything to pull down, or replace an anti-self defense public official is probably a good thing.

7x57
07-28-2010, 11:42 AM
Gray explained it quite well. CRPA signed on to the case for the good us all.


Now is a good time to say "yay, new CRPA!"

7x57

Gray Peterson
07-28-2010, 11:45 AM
The primary reason I know this will go all the way is because of Ed. Ed was wronged by the Sheriffs office. They were given an opportunity to correct themselves and they refused to do so. I really don't think the Sheriff will settle... [Referring to Gray's note about the Mandatory settlement conference.]

We won't know really for 100% certainty until after the conference. I'm merely preparing people for the possibility that this won't be the case to "fix it all" for California, but us gunnies would be able to free 3 million people from the clutches of may-issue.

J.D.Allen
07-28-2010, 11:47 AM
Well, that's the thing, the sheriff does have a chance to settle out on August 11th. That's why it's a mandatory settlement attendance. I don't see the plaintiffs conceding anything to the defendants, so it'll be up to Gore to choose between continuing to fight and laying off more employees.

Remember, folks, every level of government in California is BROKE. Be prepared for the possibility, however slight, that we'll win on a stipulated consent agreement. Plus to this is that 3 million people are freed from "may-issue" on a pretty immediate basis.

So, if this happens, is it only going to affect SD county, or will it then be effective statewide? Seems illogicsl that they could have one county under a federal shall issue requirement and not the rest of the state...

bladerunner747
07-28-2010, 11:48 AM
Yeah, it's called momentum, and we have it!
Let the steam roller keep moving forward and flatten the opposition. I hope this will clear the field and set an example for the rest.

1JimMarch
07-28-2010, 11:50 AM
Amen: do not underestimate Ed. He's the real deal.

Gray Peterson
07-28-2010, 12:01 PM
So, if this happens, is it only going to affect SD county, or will it then be effective statewide? Seems illogicsl that they could have one county under a federal shall issue requirement and not the rest of the state...

That's a function of the current situation. No way around that. Just be glad it isn't DOJ issuing licenses at this time.

Amen: do not underestimate Ed. He's the real deal.

Yeah, he won't back down unless they give him everything he wants and then some, and fix it forever more.

Crom
07-28-2010, 12:02 PM
We won't know really for 100% certainty until after the conference. I'm merely preparing people for the possibility that this won't be the case to "fix it all" for California, but us gunnies would be able to free 3 million people from the clutches of may-issue.

Thanks Gray. I didn't know that it could be settled in the conference. I reread the amended complaint and now I see what you're speaking to. One of the "prayers for relief" in the amended complaint is to establish "self defense" as "good cause". But when I read it, it is directing the defendant [Gore] to do something, not necessarily the State or other Sheriffs. I think I understand now.

It's paragraph 138 (http://ia341315.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.casd.308678/gov.uscourts.casd.308678.25.0.pdf) (Sixth Claim for relief) of the amended complaint it reads as follows:

Plaintiffs desire a Decree from this Court directing Defendants to consider self-defense to be "good cause" for an otherwise qualified applicant to be issued a CCW.
This would affect the entire county immediately but not necessarily the whole State. But perhaps the eventually settled case law after it is appealed could be used against other Sheriffs too.

tango-52
07-28-2010, 12:10 PM
If the judge issuies a Summary Judgement in favor of Peruta et al. and SD County now has Personal Protection as sufficient Good Cause, will this provide a window of opportunity for a lot of applications even if Gore appeals the ruling? Or would all those applications be put on hold pending the outcome of the appeal. Sort of like how we had a brief period of incorporation of the 2nd after the Nordyke ruling but before the En Banc.

choprzrul
07-28-2010, 12:19 PM
Once this is settled and established, would it not provide a foundation by which ALL other CA issuing authorities could be sued to use 'self defense' as GC?

It would seem to me like submitting a CCW app with reference to this case, McDonald, and Heller would put you on good legal ground. If denied, wouldn't a 7 figure civil rights lawsuit be in order? Is the plaintiff here going to seek civil damages?

sbrady@Michel&Associates
07-28-2010, 12:28 PM
Upon seeing all of these questions in this thread, I realized that we never posted on www.calgunlaws.com all the papers filed with the court in this matter. In summary, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint to add plaintiffs, CRPA Foundation and individuals, as well as new claims; Defendants filed an Opposition to that Motion; Plaintiffs filed a Reply to Defendants' Opposition; and the Court ruled in favor of Plaintiffs in its Order. I have attached all of these documents hereto for everyone's convenience. They are also available on www.calgunlaws.com.

tango-52
07-28-2010, 12:31 PM
Thanks Sean. Keep up the good work.

CCWFacts
07-28-2010, 12:33 PM
Yes they were. Judge Gonzalez approved the amended complaint the Friday before McDonald.

Yes, that's why The Right People always need an institutional plaintiff, so the case can't get disappeared by issuing a single CCW. I doubt that either Ed personally, or the CPRA, will accept anything short of total victory.

Remember that if Gore continues this, his CCW related activities are subject to a lot of scrutiny. It is in Gore's best interest to settle, as sheriffs do not get unseated over CCW issues either way (see Orange County Sheriff's Office).

There must be some really ugly things in those files which Gore hopes will never see the light of day.

Again, I don't see anything being settled for anything less than a stipulated federal consent decree and total capitulation by Sheriff Gore and the County.

Yup.

And as you say, they are broke, and Gore has a choice of fighting this case or laying off deputies. That doesn't mean he'll settle; Gore's own pension and re-election are secure no matter what he does. But it seems likely to me.

Glock22Fan
07-28-2010, 12:37 PM
And as you say, they are broke, and Gore has a choice of fighting this case or laying off deputies. That doesn't mean he'll settle; Gore's own pension and re-election are secure no matter what he does. But it seems likely to me.


I'm missing something here. Whether he fights it or gives in, it will cost him money. Why do you think that if he gives in, it will cost so much that he'll have to lay off deputies, but if he fights it, he won't? The highest cost for him is if he fights it and loses.

CalNRA
07-28-2010, 12:38 PM
so...good time to join CRPA and donate like crazy?

tiki
07-28-2010, 12:43 PM
If they settle out and they get San Diego to issue for personal protection/self defense, no restrictions, no more bad treatment of part time residents and so on, enforceable via the federal court system, a future sheriff will not really be able to get out from under it later.

Sounds great, if you live in Sand Diego. :)

Crom
07-28-2010, 12:50 PM
so...good time to join CRPA and donate like crazy?

At the very least, do join. Every little bit helps.

Yes, that's why The Right People always need an institutional plaintiff, so the case can't get disappeared by issuing a single CCW. I doubt that either Ed personally, or the CPRA, will accept anything short of total victory.

Let us hope for the best.

There must be some really ugly things in those files which Gore hopes will never see the light of day.

I understand there has been much abuse. Something about an invite-only club which you must pay to join. Membership has full CCW privileges.

Because, hey--you can't have just any citizen walking around with a gun. :rolleyes:

Upon seeing all of these questions in this thread, I realized that we never posted on www.calgunlaws.com (http://www.calgunlaws.com) all the papers filed with the court in this matter. In summary, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint to add plaintiffs, CRPA Foundation and individuals, as well as new claims; Defendants filed an Opposition to that Motion; Plaintiffs filed a Reply to Defendants' Opposition; and the Court ruled in favor of Plaintiffs in its Order. I have attached all of these documents hereto for everyone's convenience. They are also available on www.calgunlaws.com (http://www.calgunlaws.com).

Thanks Sean. Can you comment on the scope of the case as far as how many jurisdictions it may affect?

sbrady@Michel&Associates
07-28-2010, 1:00 PM
At the very least, do join. Every little bit helps.

Thanks Sean. Can you comment on the scope of the case as far as how many jurisdictions it may affect?

Sorry Crom, at this point I think it would be prudent for me to avoid making any comments on the case. I just wanted to make those materials available to everyone. I think they answer some of the questions that were made here.

thayne
07-28-2010, 1:05 PM
Sorry Crom, at this point I think it would be prudent for me to avoid making any comments on the case. I just wanted to make those materials available to everyone. I think they answer some of the questions that were made here.

That made me think of George Bush sr. "Wouldn't be prudent at this juncture." :43:

N6ATF
07-28-2010, 1:05 PM
I understand there has been much abuse. Something about an invite-only club which you must pay to join. Membership has full CCW privileges.

Because, hey--you can't have just any law-abiding citizen walking around with a gun. :rolleyes:

Fixed.

wildhawker
07-28-2010, 1:17 PM
so...good time to join CRPA and donate like crazy?

Yes, but remember that CRPA (501c(4)) and CRPA Foundation (501c(3)) are not the same entity.

J.D.Allen
07-28-2010, 1:20 PM
After reading some of the pleadings it seems to me that the defense is being completely outclassed. :punk:

wildhawker
07-28-2010, 1:21 PM
Sounds great, if you live in Sand Diego. :)

All CA will/is getting the same special treatment. :43:

AEC1
07-28-2010, 1:57 PM
Time to go get me a XD compact I think. Might even change my state of residance from FL to CA...

POLICESTATE
07-28-2010, 1:58 PM
After reading some of the pleadings it seems to me that the defense is being completely outclassed. :punk:

I almost think that the defendant feels like plaintiff's has little to no merit and doesn't require much to defend against. To many of our civil masters the idea that they win vs the people is a foregone conclusion, or so it would appear based on their sometimes outrageous behavior.

tango-52
07-28-2010, 2:33 PM
So, in looking at the Interrogatories, the Sheriff had 30 days to respond from the time he was served, and they were mailed to him on June 25, 2010. Even with slow mail, he should have responded by now. Nothing is posted on the wiki page yet, but those responses should be fun to read. :D

Grakken
07-28-2010, 2:54 PM
Wait a second, i thought some of you heavy hitters on this site were against this case and had stated we got/are getting lucky with this? Or am i thinking of another case? Sorry, i lose track of all these cases out there..Or are the right guys now involved with this?

Untamed1972
07-28-2010, 2:59 PM
After reading some of the pleadings it seems to me that the defense is being completely outclassed. :punk:


In reading many of these pleading over the last couple of years I think was starts to emerge is the fact that "The ring of truth is clear and simple".

So when these gov't agencies attempt to justify their illegal/unconstitutional actions and laws they must engage in a very convoluted, twisted defense that is usually at best based on word play and obsure interpretations and the placement of punctuation.

I mean take the 2A, what is easier to beleive....that weird, twisted oddly defined definition the anti's would have you believe that takes 100s of pages to explain....or the simple "It's an individual right just like all of the other's in the bill of rights?"

Glock22Fan
07-28-2010, 3:13 PM
I almost think that the defendant feels like plaintiff's has little to no merit and doesn't require much to defend against. To many of our civil masters the idea that they win vs the people is a foregone conclusion, or so it would appear based on their sometimes outrageous behavior.

I think that this hits the nail on the head.

Wait a second, i thought some of you heavy hitters on this site were against this case and had stated we got/are getting lucky with this? Or am i thinking of another case? Sorry, i lose track of all these cases out there..Or are the right guys now involved with this?

This case has been beefed up considerably. It is a lot stronger and more valuable now than it was when it started.

wildhawker
07-28-2010, 3:14 PM
Thankfully, Michel and Associates have joined the legal team.

Rest assured that you can be very confident in the abilities of Mr. Michel and his attorneys.

That said, the original Peruta complaint was essentially a copy of the CGF/SAF Sykes case by attorney Gura; Peruta shows that even a lawyer playing out of his league has a good chance of winning on Gura's work.

Wait a second, i thought some of you heavy hitters on this site were against this case and had stated we got/are getting lucky with this? Or am i thinking of another case? Sorry, i lose track of all these cases out there..Or are the right guys now involved with this?

Crom
07-28-2010, 3:15 PM
Fixed.

:D Exactly what I was getting at. Thank you.

So, in looking at the Interrogatories, the Sheriff had 30 days to respond from the time he was served, and they were mailed to him on June 25, 2010. Even with slow mail, he should have responded by now. Nothing is posted on the wiki page yet, but those responses should be fun to read. :D

I don't know that we'll get to see them or not with the protection motion in place. But time will tell. I had recaped the case and will check periodically to see if there are more motions filed in the future although I just about hit the $10 limit in PACER. My account reads:

Grand Total 123 pages $ 9.84

choprzrul
07-28-2010, 3:16 PM
Thankfully, Michel and Associates have joined the legal team.

Rest assured that you can be very confident in the abilities of Mr. Michel and his attorneys.

That said, the original Peruta complaint was essentially a copy of the CGF/SAF Sykes case by attorney Gura; Peruta shows that even a lawyer playing out of his league has a good chance of winning on Gura's work.

"...playing out of his league..." or perhaps outside of his/her specialty?

**EDIT**

Gura Rules

:gura::gura::gura::gura::gura:

.

wildhawker
07-28-2010, 3:20 PM
Practically, both.

"...playing out of his league..." or perhaps outside of his/her specialty?

.

2009_gunner
07-28-2010, 3:40 PM
So the judge in charge of the case is no longer Irma Gonzalez, but is now Bernard G. Skomal?

It seems like Gonzalez was a good judge; I hope Skomal is up to scratch.

Gray Peterson
07-28-2010, 4:03 PM
No, Bernald Skomal is a magistrate judge. They deal with the day to day stuff involving discovery stuff, and so on, while Judge Gonzalez makes the big decisions.

Monte
07-28-2010, 4:31 PM
Keeping my fingers crossed. Think I might need a cheat sheet to keep track of all the lawsuits going on right now.

Wherryj
07-28-2010, 4:32 PM
I hope when the county loses, Gore locks himself in his office and starts crying like Alison did when DOJ lost the ability to list new AWs. :)

If that is the case, should both of these defendants be relieved of their firearms due to representing a threat to themselves?

CALATRAVA
08-08-2010, 10:47 PM
August, 11th, right?

Wednesday is the day we might see some action on this?

Edit: And by "action" I mean something along the lines of this...

"Well, that's the thing, the sheriff does have a chance to settle out on August 11th. That's why it's a mandatory settlement attendance. I don't see the plaintiffs conceding anything to the defendants, so it'll be up to Gore to choose between continuing to fight and laying off more employees.

Remember, folks, every level of government in California is BROKE. Be prepared for the possibility, however slight, that we'll win on a stipulated consent agreement. Plus to this is that 3 million people are freed from "may-issue" on a pretty immediate basis. "

Rossi357
08-09-2010, 12:05 AM
I would like to see a list of contributors and a list of ppl that got a CCW. Just to compare the names. I'll make a small wager that everyone on the contributors list that wanted a CCW got one. Also, a list of contributors that were turned down.

heliopolissolutions
08-09-2010, 12:36 AM
You would be hard pressed to find a man with greater tenacity, a better heart or more impossibly good advice than Edward Peruta.

I respect him and truly consider him one of my role models.

wildhawker
08-09-2010, 12:55 AM
I would like to see a list of contributors and a list of ppl that got a CCW. Just to compare the names. I'll make a small wager that everyone on the contributors list that wanted a CCW got one. Also, a list of contributors that were turned down.

Get me the list of contributors and your comparison may just appear here one day. ;)

-Brandon

kcbrown
08-09-2010, 3:08 AM
Um....I see no mention at all of "good moral character" anywhere in the motion for leave to amend. But it's in the original complaint.

Will the added plaintiffs be able to continue the fight with respect to the "good moral character" issue as well, even though that isn't mentioned in the motion for leave to amend? If not, doesn't that expose our flank?

CCWFacts
08-09-2010, 6:40 AM
Um....I see no mention at all of "good moral character" anywhere in the motion for leave to amend. But it's in the original complaint.

Will the added plaintiffs be able to continue the fight with respect to the "good moral character" issue as well, even though that isn't mentioned in the motion for leave to amend? If not, doesn't that expose our flank?

"Good character" has been defined in the courts long ago, in the context of employment law. Many public agencies require that their employees have "good character" and of course job candidates who have been denied have sued, and so quite a bit of case law has built up defining what good character is. Given that these questions have been dealt with mainly in public sector employment cases, it's not arbitrary.

I know it's out of date, but the AG's 1977 informal letter (http://old.californiaccw.org/files/ag-1977-ccw-opinion.pdf) talks a lot about good moral character and has lots of case citations on the subject. The bottom line is, there are people who don't have felony convictions or other statutory prohibitions, but who also don't have good character but can be denied certain public sector jobs, and who could also be denied CCWs. But it's not arbitrary, and would require evidence.

Mulay El Raisuli
08-09-2010, 7:37 AM
Oh my goodness! I'm giddy with the thought.


The Raisuli

HunterJim
08-09-2010, 8:57 AM
After attorney Sean Brady's post I hit the Internet and checked out "federal courts mandatory settlement conference". It turns out the conference is what is mandatory, and lawyers can be whacked if they *don't* show up. The settlement possibilities are explored during the conference.

There I was again thinking the mandatory applied to settlement...

jim

Devilinbp
08-09-2010, 9:20 AM
Am i correct that the settlement conference is closed to the public? I am interested if anyone would like to or is planning to head down to the Downtown Federal Building Wednesday for this conference in support of the good people fighting for our rights.

Legasat
08-09-2010, 9:49 AM
I am firing-up my pencil for my application and crossing my fingers.

Wow, this is a very exciting time!

Legasat
08-09-2010, 9:53 AM
No written confession for Ruby Ridge? :rolleyes: :angelsad2:

:rofl2: :devil2: :tt2: :smilielol5:

Crom
08-09-2010, 9:53 AM
Am i correct that the settlement conference is closed to the public? I am interested if anyone would like to or is planning to head down to the Downtown Federal Building Wednesday for this conference in support of the good people fighting for our rights.

You are correct. It is private. The settlement conference is for attorneys only (it is in Judges chambers). I am thinking that there will be no public access until a trial date is set which will not happen until next year (2011).

The discovery phase is also private, so we're all going to have to wait for a while.

Rossi357
08-09-2010, 9:55 AM
Would a CCW with Gore's signature be suitable for framing?

CALATRAVA
08-09-2010, 10:26 AM
Would a CCW with Gore's signature be suitable for framing?

:D haha

Untamed1972
08-09-2010, 11:34 AM
Would a CCW with Gore's signature be suitable for framing?


Only if it was framed with a copy of cancelled check in the mount of $0.01 to the Gore campaign fund. :D

The Duke
08-09-2010, 11:51 AM
If the judge issuies a Summary Judgement in favor of Peruta et al. and SD County now has Personal Protection as sufficient Good Cause, will this provide a window of opportunity for a lot of applications even if Gore appeals the ruling? Or would all those applications be put on hold pending the outcome of the appeal. Sort of like how we had a brief period of incorporation of the 2nd after the Nordyke ruling but before the En Banc.

The judge will not issue summary judgement in favor of peruta. This is mainly because he has partially sold out and tied his wagon to some larger special interests that are not only going after standardization of good cause/state citizenship, but a bunch of other political issues as well as a money judgement. We have significantly hurt our cause here.

Python2
08-09-2010, 12:29 PM
The judge will not issue summary judgement in favor of peruta. This is mainly because he has partially sold out and tied his wagon to some larger special interests that are not only going after standardization of good cause/state citizenship, but a bunch of other political issues as well as a money judgement. We have significantly hurt our cause here.

How so? you sound like someone who know more than us keyboard ninja:D kindly elaborate please.

Maestro Pistolero
08-09-2010, 1:05 PM
How so? you sound like someone who know more than us keyboard ninja:D kindly elaborate please.

Do tell. How have we hurt our cause?

pullnshoot25
08-09-2010, 1:26 PM
The judge will not issue summary judgement in favor of peruta. This is mainly because he has partially sold out and tied his wagon to some larger special interests that are not only going after standardization of good cause/state citizenship, but a bunch of other political issues as well as a money judgement. We have significantly hurt our cause here.

OK, let's quit using pronouns here, I am ready to jump off of a cliff. Who did what to whom and why? What proof do you have?

Rossi357
08-09-2010, 1:31 PM
The judge will not issue summary judgement in favor of peruta. This is mainly because he has partially sold out and tied his wagon to some larger special interests that are not only going after standardization of good cause/state citizenship, but a bunch of other political issues as well as a money judgement. We have significantly hurt our cause here.

1: Standardizing personal defense as good cause is what I want.
2: Where I live for how long has nothing to do with getting a CCW.
3: What political issues are you talking about?
4: Money judgement....Reimbursment of legal fees sounds good to me.
5: Am I feeding a troll?

Edward Peruta
08-09-2010, 6:19 PM
Against my better judgment and a previous commitment not to post information or updates on Calguns, I'm going to respond to the recent post by The Duke!

You have chosen to state that I "partially sold out" and that there are claims for "a money judgment".

Have the balls to put your real name on your posts so you may be judged for the crystal ball predictions you make and the accuracy of what you say.

Enough said, I'm going back to biting my tongue, I have been kept up to date on what is happening in my San Diego case and am extremely confident with ALL of those who are currently handling same.

For all those following the case, I can assure you that things are happening.

Remember, I am the first named plaintiff and assure everyone that what I post or say is accurate.

ned946
08-09-2010, 6:31 PM
Against my better judgment and a previous commitment not to post information or updates on Calguns, I'm going to respond to the recent post by The Duke!

You have chosen to state that I "partially sold out" and that there are claims for "a money judgment".

Have the balls to put your real name on your posts so you may be judged for the crystal ball predictions you make and the accuracy of what you say.

Enough said, I'm going back to biting my tongue, I have been kept up to date on what is happening in my San Diego case and am extremely confident with ALL of those who are currently handling same.

For all those following the case, I can assure you that things are happening.

Remember, I am the first named plaintiff and assure everyone that what I post or say is accurate.

I hope you are a beer drinker, cuz I just bought you a 6-pack of e-beer. :D

Thank you for taking on the fight. It's good people like you taht restore my faith in this great nation.

:usa:

Fjold
08-09-2010, 7:08 PM
Against my better judgment and a previous commitment not to post information or updates on Calguns, I'm going to respond to the recent post by The Duke!

You have chosen to state that I "partially sold out" and that there are claims for "a money judgment".

Have the balls to put your real name on your posts so you may be judged for the crystal ball predictions you make and the accuracy of what you say.

Enough said, I'm going back to biting my tongue, I have been kept up to date on what is happening in my San Diego case and am extremely confident with ALL of those who are currently handling same.

For all those following the case, I can assure you that things are happening.

Remember, I am the first named plaintiff and assure everyone that what I post or say is accurate.


Well "The Duke"? Fish or cut bait.

hoffmang
08-09-2010, 8:04 PM
I just wanted to chime in and echo Ed here. Nothing untoward is going on in this case. Some very positive additions have been made here and as currently constituted I don't see much of any downside to this case proceeding along.

-Gene

Al Norris
08-09-2010, 8:51 PM
Just a little reminder, for you history buffs.

Immediately following the Heller decision (and for some time afterwards), certain people were bemoaning Scalia's opinion. They were certain nothing good would come of the case.

Now we have McDonald, and some of these same pessimists are singing the same tune.

It seems that whenever and whatever anything good happens, certain folks are going to gnash their teeth and wail!

I've grown used to this: Some People Are Never Satisfied.

The Duke
08-10-2010, 9:03 PM
OK, let's quit using pronouns here, I am ready to jump off of a cliff. Who did what to whom and why? What proof do you have?

Well "The Duke"? Fish or cut bait.

I am totally sorry guys...my ISP went down shortly after my last post. Didn't mean to write something so inflamatory and just bail! Actually I am not priviliaged to any insider info. But I do occassionally attend NRA member council meetings here in Riverside. I was listening to the griping by some of the guys about Peruta 'selling out' and now I feel especially bad about the content of my initial post, knowing Ed is here on this board!! Mr. Peruta, I have tremendous respect for this fight you are taking on, which I would have neither the cojones or the resources to do myself! Bravo to you.

But back to my info, the complaint was that what started as a simple case of one man, Peruta just trying to exercise his 2nd amendment right against an arbitrary sheriff became clouded and the chance for quick resolution were flushed down the toilet when he amended his complaint on the last possible day, and added the deep pockets of the California Rifle and Pistol Association who not only wanted 2a but also a money judgement.

Well I would not have hung my hat on evesdropped complaints overheard at Kountry Folks, but shortly after, I began seeing articles that stated much the same thing. Here's the first one I can find online:

http://www.examiner.com/x-30407-LA-AntiEstablishment-Examiner~y2010m7d18-Right-to-carry-a-concealed-handgun-advances

and here is the part that echo my earlier remarks:

On the last day to amend his complaint, Ed Peruta did just that by adding five new plaintiffs including the California Rifle and Pistol Association...

The unfortunate effect of amending the complaint is it rolls the clock backwards in terms of the bureaucratic steps required to resolve the case. We now have to wait for the results of the Case Management Conference scheduled for August 6th. I suspect the effect of amending the initial case will delay the judgement of the court to sometime between March and June of 2011. An additional complication would be if the plaintiffs now sought unspecified monetary damages which might now be the case given my reading of the complaint. Monetary damages means jury trials and lots more red tape before we finally get an opinion.

So again, I am no attorney, just a keyboard ninja parroting things I've heard from 'those in the know'. Really don't want to draw any ire from this board, as I think we all have the same goal here. Hopefully this info will lure Peruta back to comment and hopefully successfully rebute the charges!

wildhawker
08-10-2010, 9:15 PM
Those you refer to as "in the know" likely aren't if they are promulgating information as was contained in your above post.

So again, I am no attorney, just a keyboard ninja parroting things I've heard from 'those in the know'. Really don't want to draw any ire from this board, as I think we all have the same goal here. Hopefully this info will lure Peruta back to comment and hopefully successfully rebute the charges!

Crom
08-10-2010, 9:28 PM
Duke, Everything that Charles Nichols wrote in his article is good. I don't know how you would have asserted that any of that was bad. The amended complaint strengthened the case since there are many injustices happening in San Diego. Also by having CRPA signed on as in institutional plaintiff, it allows for the possibility that carry may be fixed for all San Diego residents and maybe even California as a whole.

Also, Ed should not feel compelled to respond to your post. Rather if you read in the comments section of the article that you posted you would already know that Ed said this to Charles on July 19th:

Edward Peruta says: I'd like to thank you for a very balanced and accurate account of what has taken place in the San Diego case. It's refreshing to know that accurate news accounts are still being published.
Respectfully,
Ed Peruta July 19, 4:30 AM
Duke if want to learn more about the case go here Peruta v. County of San Diego (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Peruta_v._County_of_San_Diego) and read the amended complaint yourself.

The Duke
08-10-2010, 9:42 PM
Duke, Everything that Charles Nichols wrote in his article is good. I don't know how you would have asserted that any of that was bad. The amended complaint strengthened the case since there are many injustices happening in San Diego. Also by having CRPA signed on as in institutional plaintiff, it allows for the possibility that carry may be fixed for all San Diego residents and maybe even California as a whole.

Also, Ed should not feel compelled to respond to your post. Rather if you read in the comments section of the article that you posted you would already know that Ed said this to Charles on July 19th:

Duke if want to learn more about the case go here Peruta v. County of San Diego (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Peruta_v._County_of_San_Diego) and read the amended complaint yourself.

I hope you are right Crom! All the "unfortunately's" in the article just had me worried. I know Nichols, as a pro-2A journalist is not happy about the additional plantiffs, but I have no idea as to his reasoning behind this. I was looking forward to a summary judgement on Peruta's very solid case. I am probably tainted by my 'anti lawyer' and anti-'jackpot' attitude, and also my impatience. But back to the OP's optimism, I still don't think we will be getting a summary judgement this year. Am I wrong on that too?

Crom
08-10-2010, 9:57 PM
I hope you are right Crom! All the "unfortunately's" in the article just had me worried. I know Nichols, as a pro-2A journalist is not happy about the additional plantiffs, but I have no idea as to his reasoning behind this. I was looking forward to a summary judgement on Peruta's very solid case. I am probably tainted by my 'anti lawyer' and anti-'jackpot' attitude, and also my impatience. But back to the OP's optimism, I still don't think we will be getting a summary judgement this year. Am I wrong on that too?

Remember that nothing with the courts is fast. The discovery will probably take about 4 months of work. And the case will not probably go to trial until March of 2011. And the ruling will happen some time after that. So it is going to be a while. Go buy a holster, wear it around the house and break it in during the mean time. :43:

The calguns court case wiki will be kept up to date so you can always check there for any new public information regarding the case.

Gray Peterson
08-10-2010, 10:15 PM
I am totally sorry guys...my ISP went down shortly after my last post. Didn't mean to write something so inflamatory and just bail! Actually I am not priviliaged to any insider info. But I do occassionally attend NRA member council meetings here in Riverside. I was listening to the griping by some of the guys about Peruta 'selling out' and now I feel especially bad about the content of my initial post, knowing Ed is here on this board!! Mr. Peruta, I have tremendous respect for this fight you are taking on, which I would have neither the cojones or the resources to do myself! Bravo to you.

But back to my info, the complaint was that what started as a simple case of one man, Peruta just trying to exercise his 2nd amendment right against an arbitrary sheriff became clouded and the chance for quick resolution were flushed down the toilet when he amended his complaint on the last possible day, and added the deep pockets of the California Rifle and Pistol Association who not only wanted 2a but also a money judgement.

Well I would not have hung my hat on evesdropped complaints overheard at Kountry Folks, but shortly after, I began seeing articles that stated much the same thing. Here's the first one I can find online:

http://www.examiner.com/x-30407-LA-AntiEstablishment-Examiner~y2010m7d18-Right-to-carry-a-concealed-handgun-advances (http://www.examiner.com/x-30407-LA-AntiEstablishment-Examiner%7Ey2010m7d18-Right-to-carry-a-concealed-handgun-advances)

and here is the part that echo my earlier remarks:

On the last day to amend his complaint, Ed Peruta did just that by adding five new plaintiffs including the California Rifle and Pistol Association...

The unfortunate effect of amending the complaint is it rolls the clock backwards in terms of the bureaucratic steps required to resolve the case. We now have to wait for the results of the Case Management Conference scheduled for August 6th. I suspect the effect of amending the initial case will delay the judgement of the court to sometime between March and June of 2011. An additional complication would be if the plaintiffs now sought unspecified monetary damages which might now be the case given my reading of the complaint. Monetary damages means jury trials and lots more red tape before we finally get an opinion.

So again, I am no attorney, just a keyboard ninja parroting things I've heard from 'those in the know'. Really don't want to draw any ire from this board, as I think we all have the same goal here. Hopefully this info will lure Peruta back to comment and hopefully successfully rebute the charges!

I will rebut. As a person who is currently suing the City and County of Denver and the State of Colorado under the same sections of law as Edward Peruta and company, I think I can speak as the motivations, reading the amended complaint.

The first thing to figure out is that money damages is not being asked for here. All of the plaintiffs, as far as I have read, have all had their CHL's denied, and now seek a reversal of that denial and licenses to be issued. Attorneys fees and court cost payments are covered under 42USC1988. The additional plaintiffs helps us, and so does the CRPA Foundation's being plaintiffs. The "moneyed interest" that these whiners at the Riverside NRA Members Council meeting is the CRPA. Perhaps they are complaining about old CRPA pre-Gerry Upholdt.

There is no money damages being asked for here, as far as I have read. They seek an overturn of the denial of their licenses, and for self defense to be determined as good cause for all applicants. That is it. CRPA Foundation is there to make sure it happens for ALL of San Diego County residents, not the plaintiffs. Institutional plaintiffs are almost always a good thing. In my particular case (Peterson v. LaCabe), it's not particularly necessary. The addition of the new plaintiffs helps us because they are varied back-stories. One's a nurse, another is a former reproductive health doctor (read into that how you will), and one is a former member of the sheriff's posse who failed to pay and all of the sudden he's denied.

A delay, in this case, is actually helpful because it'll allow us to build a better case if either side appeals to the 9th Circuit. The "March to June 2011" thing is if the case goes through a trial. Trials usually only occur if there are factual disputes (which I am not sure there is here or not, perhaps Ed can speak to that).

Remember also that the judge in this case is an actual one of those "Wise Latinas" that Sotomayor spoke of. Have you actually read the denial of San Diego's motion to dismiss back in January? It was a great piece of legal art, drawn together very well, demolishing a lot of San Diego's case.

Federal courts are also not fast. See the problems with Peña, and the 60 day stay for McDonald on Sykes. We'll get this done, Duke. Count on it.

Sun Tzu made a quippy statement about making sure your enemies do not see you, and you strike them from the dark or something else along those lines.

Arondos
08-10-2010, 10:48 PM
I have had to learn when dealing with the courts you had better be long on patience and get used to a lot of nothing happening.

My youngest son and a friend pulled a high school prank in December and got caught. All he is charged with is felony vandalism. It is now August and there isn't even a trial scheduled yet...

bwiese
08-10-2010, 11:32 PM
. Also by having CRPA signed on as in institutional plaintiff, it allows for the possibility that carry may be fixed for all San Diego residents and maybe even California as a whole

And remember it's always good for us when gun orgs and gun lawyers get paid.

Gun law is not a particularly profitable business in general unless you can bat one out of the park like Alan did - and he's still waiting to get paid by DC (and arguing how much).

Most all the successful gun lawyers you see here have thriving practices that deal in other arenas. Chuck Michel's firm does enviro law; Don Kilmer does family law; Jason Davis does a variety of non-gun law. Alan Gura does general appellate stuff


While a few of us had some initial concerns about some initial strategy/timing and representation, those are bygones - and there was never a concern that Ed was just agitating for a "money solution". He wants what we all want.

Gray Peterson
08-11-2010, 12:05 AM
And remember it's always good for us when gun orgs and gun lawyers get paid.

Gun law is not a particularly profitable business in general unless you can bat one out of the park like Alan did - and he's still waiting to get paid by DC (and arguing how much).

Most all the successful gun lawyers you see here have thriving practices that deal in other arenas. Chuck Michel's firm does enviro law; Don Kilmer does family law; Jason Davis does a variety of non-gun law. Alan Gura does general appellate stuff


While a few of us had some initial concerns about some initial strategy/timing and representation, those are bygones - and there was never a concern that Ed was just agitating for a "money solution". He wants what we all want.

Exactly. There have been occasions I have questioned Ed's tactics, but the filing of the amended complaint put away any remaining doubt. The guy is a true believer, just like we are (well, at least most of us). He could have decided to go lone ranger on his case, but he allowed the complaint to be amended so that they can't just issue him a license and moot his case. We have a good judge, we have good support of the Right People, and we are going to win San Diego. We will also win Sykes. (We being gunnies in general).

You tell those folks in Riverside to stop spreading rumors like gossiping old ladies.

PsychGuy274
08-11-2010, 12:35 AM
I've grown used to this: Some People Are Never Satisfied.

I will not be satisfied until I can go to an indoor shooting range, send out a standard silhouette target and chuck a live hand grenade at it!

Al Norris
08-11-2010, 5:28 AM
I will not be satisfied until I can go to an indoor shooting range, send out a standard silhouette target and chuck a live hand grenade at it!
Then you will never be satisfied.

CALATRAVA
08-11-2010, 7:45 AM
5 hours to go. It'll be interesting to hear what goes down. It seems like a longshot to think that something might be decided today, but one never can tell.

Tallship
08-11-2010, 8:10 AM
You are correct. It is private. The settlement conference is for attorneys only (it is in Judges chambers).

Ummmm, I think the parties are allowed to be there too. ;)

Wherryj
08-11-2010, 8:24 AM
Would a CCW with Gore's signature be suitable for framing?

It would be suitable for a new post on urbanlegend.com.

pullnshoot25
08-11-2010, 8:41 AM
And remember it's always good for us when gun orgs and gun lawyers get paid.

Gun law is not a particularly profitable business in general unless you

Exactly. There have been occasions I have questioned Ed's tactics, but the filing of the amended complaint put away any remaining doubt. The guy is a true believer, just like we are (well, at least most of us). He could have decided to go lone ranger on his case, but he allowed the complaint to be amended so that they can't just issue him a license and moot his case. We have a good judge, we have good support of the Right People, and we are going to win San Diego. We will also win Sykes. (We being gunnies in general).

You tell those folks in Riverside to stop spreading rumors like gossiping old ladies.

Kick my city's ***!

San Diego is certainly taking the hard road on all of these things...

PsychGuy274
08-11-2010, 9:12 AM
Kick my city's ***!

San Diego is certainly taking the hard road on all of these things...

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/hs159.ash2/41291_1420781953055_1037850079_1671368_5925550_n.j pg

N6ATF
08-11-2010, 9:29 AM
LMFAO

Crom
08-11-2010, 9:56 AM
So there have been a few updates in the case. It appears that on August 6th there was a "case management conference order (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.casd.308678/gov.uscourts.casd.308678.31.0.pdf)" which changed some of the dates.

The mandatory settlement conference (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.casd.308678/gov.uscourts.casd.308678.31.0.pdf)is not happening today; it is now set into the future and is scheduled to occur on December 9th, 2010.

Also the Final pretrial conference is set for May 16th 2011.

The wiki has been updated.

Peruta v. County of San Diego (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Peruta_v._County_of_San_Diego)

tango-52
08-11-2010, 10:03 AM
More "denial by delay". That sucks.

BigDogatPlay
08-11-2010, 10:07 AM
Not to pile on but the additional and institutional plaintiffs, as has been stated on other pages, takes the option of the sheriff simply doling a permit to Mr. Peruta and mooting the case off the table.

More plaintiffs was the right way to go. No one is trying to get rich that I can see.

ironpegasus
08-11-2010, 10:33 AM
Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist here, but in light of this, what are the chances of Gore losing/throwing re-election and the new Sheriff changing to a "shall issue" style policy so as to remove the cause(s) of action, denying CRPA and other organizational parties the opportunity to obtain a win that would set precedent for making the rest of the counties fall into line? In other words, what are the chances of the anti-gunners saying "we're going to lose here, but if we cede the point on this one without a judgement, we can maintain that control over the other umpteen counties"? From a tactics standpoint it'd give them the opportunity to fall back and regroup and focus their efforts on influencing the legislature to pass some new law that makes getting the "shall issue" that we all long for even more impossible (at least for the short term)?
The problem that I see with our current system is that in the states where it is already shall-issue we lack standing to sue and so can't gain an easy shall issue precedent even though the majority of states have far more reasonable laws regarding concealed or open carry. So if some judge screws the pooch on what the right call should be regarding the constitutionality of CC law then the only precedent we have is "the right to carry is not Constitutionally guaranteed". Then we get to deal with stare decisis at the same level and have to play all the games of chasing it up to the Supreme Court. Ugh.

tango-52
08-11-2010, 10:35 AM
Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist here, but in light of this, what are the chances of Gore losing/throwing re-election and the new Sheriff changing to a "shall issue" style policy so as to remove the cause(s) of action, denying CRPA and other organizational parties the opportunity to obtain a win that would set precedent for making the rest of the counties fall into line? In other words, what are the chances of the anti-gunners saying "we're going to lose here, but if we cede the point on this one without a judgement, we can maintain that control over the other umpteen counties"? From a tactics standpoint it'd give them the opportunity to fall back and regroup and focus their efforts on influencing the legislature to pass some new law that makes getting the "shall issue" that we all long for even more impossible (at least for the short term)?
The problem that I see with our current system is that in the states where it is already shall-issue we lack standing to sue and so can't gain an easy shall issue precedent even though the majority of states have far more reasonable laws regarding concealed or open carry. So if some judge screws the pooch on what the right call should be regarding the constitutionality of CC law then the only precedent we have is "the right to carry is not Constitutionally guaranteed". Then we get to deal with stare decisis at the same level and have to play all the games of chasing it up to the Supreme Court. Ugh.

Gore won the primary by more than 51%. He is now Sheriff for life. There is no Sheriff election in November in San Diego County. Same with The Witch in Orange County.

pullnshoot25
08-11-2010, 10:53 AM
Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist here, but in light of this, what are the chances of Gore losing/throwing re-election and the new Sheriff changing to a "shall issue" style policy so as to remove the cause(s) of action, denying CRPA and other organizational parties the opportunity to obtain a win that would set precedent for making the rest of the counties fall into line? In other words, what are the chances of the anti-gunners saying "we're going to lose here, but if we cede the point on this one without a judgement, we can maintain that control over the other umpteen counties"? From a tactics standpoint it'd give them the opportunity to fall back and regroup and focus their efforts on influencing the legislature to pass some new law that makes getting the "shall issue" that we all long for even more impossible (at least for the short term)?
The problem that I see with our current system is that in the states where it is already shall-issue we lack standing to sue and so can't gain an easy shall issue precedent even though the majority of states have far more reasonable laws regarding concealed or open carry. So if some judge screws the pooch on what the right call should be regarding the constitutionality of CC law then the only precedent we have is "the right to carry is not Constitutionally guaranteed". Then we get to deal with stare decisis at the same level and have to play all the games of chasing it up to the Supreme Court. Ugh.

It is not likely. I saw that smug bastard at the Catfish Club debate and from what I know from those that talked to him afterwards,.he was just wheedling about.

Gray Peterson
08-11-2010, 11:36 AM
Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist here, but in light of this, what are the chances of Gore losing/throwing re-election and the new Sheriff changing to a "shall issue" style policy so as to remove the cause(s) of action, denying CRPA and other organizational parties the opportunity to obtain a win that would set precedent for making the rest of the counties fall into line? In other words, what are the chances of the anti-gunners saying "we're going to lose here, but if we cede the point on this one without a judgement, we can maintain that control over the other umpteen counties"? From a tactics standpoint it'd give them the opportunity to fall back and regroup and focus their efforts on influencing the legislature to pass some new law that makes getting the "shall issue" that we all long for even more impossible (at least for the short term)?
The problem that I see with our current system is that in the states where it is already shall-issue we lack standing to sue and so can't gain an easy shall issue precedent even though the majority of states have far more reasonable laws regarding concealed or open carry. So if some judge screws the pooch on what the right call should be regarding the constitutionality of CC law then the only precedent we have is "the right to carry is not Constitutionally guaranteed". Then we get to deal with stare decisis at the same level and have to play all the games of chasing it up to the Supreme Court. Ugh.

Sheriff Gore won the election in June. He's sheriff for life now (his next re-election is four years). Btw, the way things are going, Sheriff Gore's policies will mean nothing in 4 years and it'll be treated similarly a drivers license after background checks.

We have two very good judges in our California carry cases (District Judge Morrison England, Jr in Sykes and Chief Judge Irma Gonzalez) and I have no doubt we will win on the district court level. Stop being such conspiracy theorists and whining old bitties, people.

Untamed1972
08-11-2010, 11:48 AM
Stop being such conspiracy theorists and whining old bitties, people.


:sorcerer: Peterson The Gray has spoken! So mote it be! :sorcerer:

LOL

choprzrul
08-11-2010, 12:03 PM
Which moves faster; the courts or molasses in January?

.

CCWFacts
08-11-2010, 12:07 PM
That's a bummer (to me) that it has been so delayed. I'm glad there are so many good cases working their way through system, but I'm impatient!

CSDGuy
08-11-2010, 12:10 PM
Which moves faster; the courts or molasses in January?

.
Hands down, the molasses. However, both will eventually move.

Glock22Fan
08-11-2010, 12:13 PM
That's a bummer (to me) that it has been so delayed. I'm glad there are so many good cases working their way through system, but I'm impatient!

Better to delay the case to make it far, far, stronger, than run it as it was, when it wasn't as strong.

Ed Peruta has a good case, but adding the others, including the guy whose renewal was rejected because he hadn't bribed the sheriff kept up to date on his dues makes it really cast iron, whereas CRPA's involvement (of course) means that it isn't just good enough to issue five CCW's and call it a day.

Vox
08-11-2010, 12:30 PM
Just a little reminder, for you history buffs.

Immediately following the Heller decision (and for some time afterwards), certain people were bemoaning Scalia's opinion. They were certain nothing good would come of the case.

Now we have McDonald, and some of these same pessimists are singing the same tune.

It seems that whenever and whatever anything good happens, certain folks are going to gnash their teeth and wail!

I've grown used to this: Some People Are Never Satisfied.

I think those people wanted a 9-0 decision with Scalia's opinion reading something like this

"WTF?! Can't you read?! It says 'shall not be infringed', everybody, load up whatever you want, carry it whereever you want, BTW this is incorporated against the states, and you now what, I'm rewording the amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting the restriction of firearm posession, ownership or carry anywhere in the United States or its posessions" KTHNKBAI"

ironpegasus
08-11-2010, 12:43 PM
Sheriff Gore won the election in June. He's sheriff for life now (his next re-election is four years). Btw, the way things are going, Sheriff Gore's policies will mean nothing in 4 years and it'll be treated similarly a drivers license after background checks.

We have two very good judges in our California carry cases (District Judge Morrison England, Jr in Sykes and Chief Judge Irma Gonzalez) and I have no doubt we will win on the district court level. Stop being such conspiracy theorists and whining old bitties, people.

Hey - I'm just trying to say if I were on the other side, that's what I'd do in their situation given the current landscape. I wasn't whining at all - just pointing out possibilities and asking what the chances were because I like to know as much as I can about any particular situation. Never said "Oh god, we're doomed!"
And please, if you are going to call me names at least have the courtesy to get it right, it's "biddy" not "bitty".

Mulay El Raisuli
08-12-2010, 7:33 AM
KTHNKBAI"


Huh?


The Raisuli

Crom
08-12-2010, 7:43 AM
Huh?


The Raisuli

It's slang. It's a remark used to signal the end of a conversation after a disticnt point has been made...

OK-Thanks-Bye = kthanksbai

But vox omitted the "s" and spelled it: KTHNKBAI

Urban dictionary (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=kthanksbai) to the rescue. :D

Maestro Pistolero
08-12-2010, 8:40 AM
And please, if you are going to call me names at least have the courtesy to get it right, it's "biddy" not "bitty".Ouch, man. Gray now stands corrected, you are a Biddy, with a "D".

The Duke
08-12-2010, 10:36 AM
Sheriff Gore won the election in June. He's sheriff for life now (his next re-election is four years). Btw, the way things are going, Sheriff Gore's policies will mean nothing in 4 years and it'll be treated similarly a drivers license after background checks.

We have two very good judges in our California carry cases (District Judge Morrison England, Jr in Sykes and Chief Judge Irma Gonzalez) and I have no doubt we will win on the district court level. Stop being such conspiracy theorists and whining old bitties, people.

Don't dismiss the bitties. I, for one was trying to get a ccw permit 20 years ago. Many californians are just realistic about the state we live in and have burned too many times in the past to expect that our rights will suddenly start being respected. I am with you Gray and hope we succeed in the courts. I also feel fortunate to be in Riverside, where our problems are not as bad as the more urban parts of the state...but for those areas, I am trying to keep my hopes down so I will be pleasantly surprised.

motorhead
08-12-2010, 11:25 AM
personally, i don't see gore caving. budget has no bearing. l.e. is at the top of the budgetary food chain. he will continue to oppose just to save face and refute a challenge to his authority.
i hope the plaintiff leave him with major butthurt.

nicki
08-12-2010, 2:01 PM
When Ed's case first hit, alot of people were concerned.

I am pleased to see all of us on the same team, we have two well planned cases that should get us CCW here in California.

The CCW issue is not just us, but other states as well.

Someone will be stupid enough to challenge Gura in front of the SCOTUS on CCW law.

The question is which law firm wants to get demolished.

Nicki

Maestro Pistolero
08-12-2010, 3:44 PM
I think Mr. Peruta will win this, but I would still like to see LOC established as the baseline of bear. But, if there is one thing an anti-gunner hates more than knowing everyone is armed, it's him having to actually see that damn thing!

Go, Ed, your doing a great thing for our country.

dantodd
08-12-2010, 3:47 PM
If Gore requested the extension can there be any trouble for him if he doesn't make a good faith effort to actually settle? In other words, is there any penalty for requesting extensions specifically to prolong a case?

Maestro Pistolero
08-12-2010, 3:51 PM
In other words, is there any penalty for requesting extensions specifically to prolong a case?Might a summary judgement be granted in such a case?

Rossi357
08-12-2010, 4:31 PM
If Gore requested the extension can there be any trouble for him if he doesn't make a good faith effort to actually settle? In other words, is there any penalty for requesting extensions specifically to prolong a case?

He is prolly having trouble finding enough electrical outlets for all the shredding machines.

Crom
08-12-2010, 4:33 PM
He is prolly having trouble finding enough electrical outlets for all the shredding machines.

Very funny and probably unfortunately true. I do worry about such things.

If Gore requested the extension can there be any trouble for him if he doesn't make a good faith effort to actually settle? In other words, is there any penalty for requesting extensions specifically to prolong a case?

There has been no motions for an extension. The dates were pushed back because going to trial is a lot of work and it's going to take much time to put everything together. In the discovery phase, Plaintiff's attorneys are going to take the sheriffs office and turn it inside out. They will review many CCW records on file with the sheriffs office going back four years. Plus a bunch of other policy and procedure documents from the sheriff's office. I imagine it will be several filing cabinets worth of paper. (Who knows, maybe it's all electronic now?) Also there will be many interrogatories and depositions of witnesses.

Judge Skomal set some rules down in the last filing. Here are some of the rules and dates regarding the timeline:



The Court expects counsel to make every effort to resolve all disputes without court intervention.

On or before October 4, 2010, all parties shall exchange with all other parties a list of all expert witnesses expected to be called at trial pursuant

...supplemental reports are due on or before November 12, 2010.

All fact discovery shall be completed on or before November 24, 2010.

All expert discovery, shall be completed on or before December 17, 2010.

All motions, other than motions to amend or join parties, or motions in limine, shall be FILED on or before January 14, 2011.

The Original Godfather
08-12-2010, 5:36 PM
I havent been following all the cases, but this particular one I am, and I'm praying this goes in our favor.


What more good cause does one need than "self defense"? And i do have residence in another county. I would hate to be categorized as a "part time" resident. As if human beings are only allowed to live in one spot. Especially for the more fortunate, those living several months out of the year in different areas, not being able to obtain a CCW because they can actually afford and choose to live in other parts of the country throughout the year, that would really put a damper on their chances of obtaining a CCW... Live in one county and have a chance at a CCW, or travel throughout the country and have multiple homes throughout the year because they can. hmm...

3013
08-12-2010, 9:29 PM
I look forward to the day that I can carry in my city of residence not just when I'm out of state. Thank you Ed for fighting for those of us who "aren't good enough" to carry the same guns at home as we do when we travel.

Mulay El Raisuli
08-13-2010, 8:54 AM
It's slang. It's a remark used to signal the end of a conversation after a disticnt point has been made...

OK-Thanks-Bye = kthanksbai

But vox omitted the "s" and spelled it: KTHNKBAI

Urban dictionary (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=kthanksbai) to the rescue. :D

Thanks.


I think Mr. Peruta will win this, but I would still like to see LOC established as the baseline of bear. But, if there is one thing an anti-gunner hates more than knowing everyone is armed, it's him having to actually see that damn thing!


Plus 1,000!


The Raisuli

bandook
08-14-2010, 10:27 PM
This one WILL be settled without trial - mainly so as not to establish case law.

hoffmang
08-14-2010, 10:52 PM
This one WILL be settled without trial - mainly so as not to establish case law.

Unlikely as there is almost no way to settle with the CRPA Foundation short of stipulating to shall issue.

-Gene

bandook
08-15-2010, 8:16 AM
Unlikely as there is almost no way to settle with the CRPA Foundation short of stipulating to shall issue.

-Gene

I hope this goes to trial, but as far as LE is concerned, isn't localizing the 'damage' to San Diego far better than establishing shall issue all over California?

HunterJim
08-15-2010, 8:23 AM
I live in San Diego County, and have for over 25 years (the Navy kept sending me here and the kids call it home). The County has always been separate from the rest of Southern California (and most recently kept that way by Camp Pendleton). The power structure here doesn't worry about the rest of California when making decisions, they do what they want to do. It is more Republican and conservative than the rest of SoCal, and insular.

jim

hill billy
08-15-2010, 8:29 AM
I hope this goes to trial, but as far as LE is concerned, isn't localizing the 'damage' to San Diego far better than establishing shall issue all over California?

No. As I understand it, a settlement would remove residency restrictions. So anyone in Ca could get a CCW from SD county. I'm sure someone will correct me if I am mis reading this.

PsychGuy274
08-15-2010, 8:31 AM
No. As I understand it, a settlement would remove residency restrictions. So anyone in Ca could get a CCW from SD county. I'm sure someone will correct me if I am mis reading this.

Not since the CRPA jumped on and amended the original complaint. Settlement wouldn't be anything less than 'shall issue' on top of lifting the residency requirement.

However, I don't expect to see a settlement. Gore's too stubborn for that.

Off to court we go!

hill billy
08-15-2010, 8:37 AM
Not since the CRPA jumped on and amended the original complaint. Settlement wouldn't be anything less than 'shall issue' on top of lifting the residency requirement.

However, I don't expect to see a settlement. Gore's too stubborn for that.

Off to court we go!
You are right, I missed the part about shall issue.

N6ATF
08-15-2010, 8:40 AM
I don't think sheriffs take one for the "team" (of all the county sheriffs). If they did, Sykes (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Sykes_v._McGinness) would be nullified by full stipulation.

Since one law-abiding person able to defend themselves against crime is one too many for these criminals, they will continue to infringe as much as possible, for as long as possible. Far too often, we've seen money is no object, as they can just delay paying indefinitely, like DC is doing with Gura.

Maestro Pistolero
08-15-2010, 8:43 AM
However, I don't expect to see a settlement. Gore's too stubborn for that.

Off to court we go!Gore simply cannot be seen as folding on this issue. The court will have to order it.

Merle
08-15-2010, 9:45 AM
Trying to catch up on the new updates with of this case, but what has changed since Ed posted here the first time and people gave him crap?

Were there new findings, new merits to the case or did more people just jump on the band wagon "strengthening" the case?

IIRC the key points were: Non-resident (or resident of only XX days) makes temporary residents obtaining a CCW impossible, and the good cause clause limiting the issuance of a CCW.

Maestro Pistolero
08-15-2010, 10:03 AM
Trying to catch up on the new updates with of this case, but what has changed since Ed posted here the first time and people gave him crap?

Were there new findings, new merits to the case or did more people just jump on the band wagon "strengthening" the case?

IIRC the key points were: Non-resident (or resident of only XX days) makes temporary residents obtaining a CCW impossible, and the good cause clause limiting the issuance of a CCW.

Read the Wiki on the first post. I understand it is kept current. It appears it is going to trial in the new year.

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Peruta_v._County_of_San_Diego

sbrady@Michel&Associates
08-15-2010, 10:42 AM
Trying to catch up on the new updates with of this case, but what has changed since Ed posted here the first time and people gave him crap?

Were there new findings, new merits to the case or did more people just jump on the band wagon "strengthening" the case?

IIRC the key points were: Non-resident (or resident of only XX days) makes temporary residents obtaining a CCW impossible, and the good cause clause limiting the issuance of a CCW.


My post at #43 in this thread has a lot of the latest filings in this case attached.

Merle
08-15-2010, 11:07 AM
My post at #43 in this thread has a lot of the latest filings in this case attached.

Thanks Sean, the wiki link previously posted leaves too much to be desired (e.g. no link to the original thread here to thread 't=259383') and the links help narrow it down:

1. 4 new people were added
2. These 4 people to address the "good cause" issue
3. Relief is desired for all members/residents and not just Mr. Peruta.

Is that a fair synopsis?

The reason I ask is that I do spend some time in CA (most of the time in NV) and the residency issue is tripping me up. I'd like to see a) the residency portion removed or b) acceptance of other states CCW permits (e.g. NV).

Good cause is nice, but if you HAVE to be a resident then you can NOT get a permit - and there's the EPC argument against that in there from the documents.

So for selfish reasons...
Do the residency restrictions look like they stand a good chance of "going away"?
Are we willing to concede this in order to get the "good cause" portion removed/altered?

sbrady@Michel&Associates
08-15-2010, 11:20 AM
Sorry Merle, I cannot comment on the case other than to say your synopsis is failry accurate, but you forgot that CRPA Foundation is a plaintiff and also seeks relief for its supporters.

Merle
08-15-2010, 12:17 PM
Sorry Merle, I cannot comment on the case other than to say your synopsis is fairly accurate, but you forgot that CRPA Foundation is a plaintiff and also seeks relief for its supporters.

I understand.

I don't mind reading some (as it pertains to volume as long as it remains within reason) of this case to see if it's still potentially applicable to myself.

Plus, I understand how the C in CRPA does stand for California - and this will address the 2nd part (residency being the first and good cause the 2nd) of any application I may pursue in the future.

ke6guj
08-15-2010, 2:39 PM
Thanks Sean, the wiki link previously posted leaves too much to be desired (e.g. no link to the original thread here to thread 't=259383') and the links help narrow it down:

1. 4 new people were added
2. These 4 people to address the "good cause" issue
3. Relief is desired for all members/residents and not just Mr. Peruta.

Is that a fair synopsis?

if you don't like how the wiki is updated, then why don't you update it with the info you have available to you?

Crom
08-15-2010, 3:16 PM
Thanks Sean, the wiki link previously posted leaves too much to be desired (e.g. no link to the original thread here to thread 't=259383')

I built the Peruta Wiki case and have volunteered to maintain it. If you have suggestions PM me, I'll be glad to listen. I did not link to the thread you refer to because of the ugly argument that developed in the thread. Also, much of it is obsolete now since the case has evolved way beyond what it once was.



and the links help narrow it down:

1. 4 new people were added
2. These 4 people to address the "good cause" issue
3. Relief is desired for all members/residents and not just Mr. Peruta.


Maybe you didn't see it. There is a link for the the amended complaint (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.casd.308678/gov.uscourts.casd.308678.25.0.pdf) dated June 25, 2010, this is where the additional plaintiffs were added. I suggest you read it, and pay particular attention to the sections for "claims for relief." There are seven, and the prayer (for relief). It's only a few pages and its a good read.


Is that a fair synopsis?

The reason I ask is that I do spend some time in CA (most of the time in NV) and the residency issue is tripping me up. I'd like to see a) the residency portion removed or b) acceptance of other states CCW permits (e.g. NV).

Good cause is nice, but if you HAVE to be a resident then you can NOT get a permit - and there's the EPC argument against that in there from the documents.

So for selfish reasons...
Do the residency restrictions look like they stand a good chance of "going away"?
Are we willing to concede this in order to get the "good cause" portion removed/altered?

I think it's impossible to predict how the residency thing will play out, but it will be resolved one way or another. I think the Judge will order the sheriff to consider part time residency sufficient. Whereas the Sheriff's office now has a problem with part time residency.

But the judge could very well go much further. It has a chance.

Hunt
08-15-2010, 3:32 PM
Very funny and probably unfortunately true. I do worry about such things...


not to worry-- Gore has proven his trustworthiness with his performance at Ruby Ridge and Waco, not to mention rolling out military sound weapons with untrained operators on civilians at town hall meetings.

Merle
08-15-2010, 5:44 PM
Crom,

Gotta publically thank you for for stepping in and up.

The amended complaint (and intent) is there but the amended complaint is definately difficult to see in the list of links. Most people who aren't intimately familar with the case won't know where to start (e.g. me), and if you start at the beginning, you get a lot of older PDF files.

I do like the intent section, but it's at the bottom. Any chance of moving it to the top so it's easier to read/see? Maybe give a brief synopsis also?

Ed Peruta, a resident and law abiding citizen applied for a CCW on XXX from the SDSO and was subsequently denied. Amongst the reasons for denial include insufficient residency and lack of good cause. On YYY the CRPA and ZZZ groups filed an amended complaint challenging the denial on several grounds, including: equal protection, 2A protections, etc.

Any wordsmiths? ;)

Again, thanks for stepping up, I know how difficult it is (had people do it for me at the bequest of mgmt) to keep documentation up to date, especially with regards to complex subjects.

Laser Sailor
08-24-2010, 2:43 PM
Wow, this seems to be the case I've been waiting for.

As I read it posts and the attached documents I reached the conclusion that the plaintiffs are seeking to force the sheriff to change his policy to basically "shall issue" and drop the residency requirements, is that a fair summary?

Crom
08-24-2010, 3:14 PM
Crom,

Gotta publically thank you for for stepping in and up.

Thanks. I am glad to help where I can. I made some modifications by adding an introduction section (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Peruta_v._County_of_San_Diego#Introduction) which is a plain English summary of the case and is easy to understand.

Wow, this seems to be the case I've been waiting for.

As I read it posts and the attached documents I reached the conclusion that the plaintiffs are seeking to force the sheriff to change his policy to basically "shall issue" and drop the residency requirements, is that a fair summary?

Welcome to the Calguns community! :)

It would indeed mandate that "self defense" would be considered sufficient for good cause. I believe that the residency requirement would still apply but the Sheriff could not discriminate against part time residents.

There is also another case which has the potential to fix carry for California and that is the Sykes v. McGinness (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Sykes_v._McGinness) case which is a Calguns/SAF sponsored lawsuit.

xXBigJoeXx
08-25-2010, 11:59 AM
+1 to all that are involved in this case and working hard so that Ed and everyone else can get a CCW based on Self/Personal Defense in San Diego County!

I wanted to apply but didn't know if living by the border and growing up in East L.A. would suffice as good cause.... :rolleyes:

*Fingers Crossed!*

O'sider
10-17-2010, 6:53 PM
so...good time to join CRPA and donate like crazy?

Suddenly I'm feeling *very, very* good about the $100.00 I donated to the
CRPA legal fund a few months ago!!! :)

chewy352
10-18-2010, 1:36 AM
San Diego Sheriffs Debate

Go to: http://www.amatotalk.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=0&Itemid=138&limit=11&limitstart=407

The 8th title down is: San Diego County Sheriff's Debate
The date is: Monday 14 September 2009
The question starts at 10:30
Gores answer starts at 11:04

ENJOY!!!!!!

Firemark
11-16-2010, 1:07 PM
So I got a chance to talk with other people in attendance at the Peruta hearing for summary judgement. I know many of you want to know what happened, I will try and report as close as possible to what was said from my notes, as no recorders were allowed. The judges opening remarks - she wanted to devote a substantial amount of time on such a “wide issue”. There would be no rulings today but a written order would be coming in 3 weeks, so Dec 6th or so.
Plaintiffs first remarks covered 2A applies to outside the home, and there can not be an out right ban, the concept of heightened scrutiny, “shall not issue” is an infringement of 2A, and that the complaint was amended not to specifically challenge PC 12050.

Judges question “aren’t you attacking the statute sort of backdoor or around it?, isn’t good cause the root of your argument?”

Plaintiff –yes but it excludes self defense.

Judge then stated will review PC 12031, and 12025.
Plaintiff suggested a book resource “How to own a gun and stay out of jail”
Also –must have constitutional licensing in place, and right to self defense is a deterrent to crime.

Judges question “is self defense good cause essentially?”
Plaintiff- right now there are to many hoops to jump through
Judges question “public, you mean walking down the street?”
Plaintiff- we are not challenging sensitive areas.
Then he went on to describe the Sheriffs backward presumptive cause
Judges question “good cause mandates documentation?”
Plaintiff stated the cause as they are described now along with the “Sheriffs honorary reserve” as being in violation of the 14th Amend. (just a quick note the honorary reserve is the Sheriffs non peace officer club where if you donate a substantial amount to the “club” you get preferential treatment for CCW issuance).
Judges question “what if documentation was not required, would that be constitutional?”
Plaintiff –no, then cited US v Ligon guidance for strict scrutiny and all cases before Macdonald/Heller didn’t recognize fundamental right.
Judges Question “do I need to get to strict scrutiny as a standard?”
Plaintiff- Heller/Macdonald came about because of a categorical denial of rights because no scrutiny was applied, no standard of review.
Judges Question “Why can’t verification be narrowly tailored? I’ve been working under that theory?”
Plaintiff- ALL fundamental rights are subject to strict scrutiny, whats the compelling governments’ interest? Is it strictly tailored?
Judges Question “In summary judgement, what would you want me to do?”
Plaintiff- Not challenging 12025, county policy must accept 2A as an individual right and self protection is good cause.
There was a brief discussion regarding right to travel and residency requirements im sure to address the part time residency question. At this point the plaintiff yielded the floor to the defendant.
Defendants remarks starts off with Heller means only fundamental in the home, referring to section 3 of Heller, scope of right is not unlimited, and that the entire history of Conceal carry laws are Constitutional. He then made a reference to Chandler and compelling govt. interest and the need to revisit the fundamental right.
Judges question- “they (Plaintiff) are not attacking the statute?”
Defendant- the 1917 law then would have to throw out good cause.
Judges question- “12031 (J) are you familiar? Is it relevant here?”
Defendant- well Open carry allows you to load your firearm and be ready. This entire case just boils down to 3 seconds to UOC draw (in reference to YouTube videos) or throwing out may issue law.
Judges question- “What is the counties position on “standard”?
Defendant- Plaintiff really should be challenging 12031, we can’t issue CCW’s to everyone we are a “Border town”. They can go into parks and within 1000 YARDS of schools (yes he said YARDS). And continued on the “what about the children” style of emotional rant.
Judges question- well as a what if, what if an honest person can’t show good cause?
Defendant- a very high number of ccw’s are granted in San Diego, there are currently 1234 of them. (Just for reference Connecticut population 3.5 mil, San Diego County 3.1mil….CCW’s SD=1234, Connecticut 150,000+) Connecticut is the other state Peruta owns property in and carries regularly.
Judges question- “Does strict scrutiny apply?”
Plaintiff- Intermediate at best.

At this point the Sheriffs counsel sat down and the Plaintiff again took the floor.
Judges question- “County says this isn’t a right?”
Plaintiff- your honor this is the same complaint they made when your honor denied them motion to dismiss, 12025 gave discretion to the sheriff that was VERY wide before Heller/Macdonald, now they are saying this lawsuit says its much to narrow??? Are CCW’s really causing more crime?? (Rhetorical question)
Judges question- So some counties are shall issue? Some are not? Is their a different standard?
At this point the judge did something she hadn’t done all trial she spent the next 3 minutes or so during the answer to this question feverishly writing, head down, focused on topic.
Plaintiff- I stopped writing notes at this point cause I can see this was pivotal, and commented to those around me, Plaintiff did a great job explaining, shall issue vs. may issue states, how each county does not use a standard, how 14th amendment is not followed for equal application, how Sheriffs special honoray reserve is not a police force or Law Enforcement agency but simply a club that gets special treatment, he also discussed how a very small number of the population actually get CCW’s but they have a huge impact on crime levels. Then the best statement of the whole day

“If 5% OF THE DUCKS SHOOT BACK, “NO ONE” WOULD GO DUCK HUNTING”

Defendant got floor one last time and reiterated how Heller is limited to the home only, the court needs to strike good cause (self defense) and then the “what about the children” speech again, being a border town, yada, yada, yada.

Plaintiffs last comments were basically, what will legislature allow? CCW or loaded open carry.

Judge closed with this is a very important case, both sides are very passionate, Ill have a written decision in 3 weeks.

So that’s what I have, I tried not to give to much commentary and keep it as much objective as I could. Important to note the Sheriffs lawyer didn’t know the Open carry law, not only did he say 1000 yards from a school but said OC’r can keep the gun on the hip and the “clip” in their pockets.. I look forward to the discussion, apologies for syntax and or spelling errors.

krucam
11-16-2010, 1:16 PM
Outstanding synopsis firemark...

ac427cpe
11-16-2010, 1:43 PM
Thanks for sharing/posting for those of us who couldn't be there.

OneSevenDeuce
11-16-2010, 1:58 PM
Excellent read firemark. Thanks.

Mstrty
11-16-2010, 2:10 PM
“If 5% OF THE DUCKS SHOOT BACK, “NO ONE” WOULD GO DUCK HUNTING”



:rofl:

Wildhawk66
11-16-2010, 2:12 PM
Really appreciate the write-up firemark, thanks for taking the time.

lorax3
11-16-2010, 2:42 PM
Great write up! Pretty sure the below quote is my favorite.


Defendant- a very high number of ccw’s are granted in San Diego, there are currently 1234 of them. (Just for reference Connecticut population 3.5 mil, San Diego County 3.1mil….CCW’s SD=1234, Connecticut 150,000+) Connecticut is the other state Peruta owns property in and carries regularly.

xXBigJoeXx
11-16-2010, 4:23 PM
Thanks fir the update. Great synopsis :D

craneman
11-16-2010, 4:32 PM
Thank You for sharing Firemark. Did they (plaintiff) say anything to the judge about Heller not being specific to the right to bare "in the home only"? Maybe I have forgotten, but I was under the understanding that Heller did not distinctly say in the home only. If that is the case, then the defense should not be able to interpit based on something that is not written in black and white. If I am wrong, somebody please correct me. If I am right, I hope the judge realizes the depth of the defense's case.

Large percentage does not equal less that .01%:rolleyes: in my book. That would be a pretty far reach for a number referrence. I hope the judge realizes that little mathmatical equation, too.

The Rattler
11-16-2010, 4:52 PM
We win. Now what?

Gore issues ccw for self defense on the condition of...
Raises training time to 20 hours at Sheriff sponsored location. Cost $750.
Requires $250 per year registration with mandatory qualifier each year. $50 range fee.
Requires $1mil umbrella policy for person carrying.
Must submit to psych eval. Cost $500

Then again, we loose.

Can this happen?

bulgron
11-16-2010, 5:02 PM
We win. Now what?

Gore issues ccw for self defense on the condition of...
Raises training time to 20 hours at Sheriff sponsored location. Cost $750.
Requires $250 per year registration with mandatory qualifier each year. $50 range fee.
Requires $1mil umbrella policy for person carrying.
Must submit to psych eval. Cost $500

Then again, we loose.

Can this happen?

No. Well, more to the point, he could try but then that's just another lawsuit waiting to happen. There are limits on what he can require under state law. The current on-going Calguns CCW initiative is designed to get California Sheriffs around the state to be in compliance with state law wrt CCW issuance. Many are not. Also, 14A equal protection means that whatever he inflicts on one set of people, he must inflict on all the other people he issues to. Do you really think the wealthy, famous, and spoiled in San Diego county would put up with the crap that you outline above?

The Rattler
11-16-2010, 5:33 PM
"just another lawsuit waiting to happen"

It's not his money he has to spend.

"Do you really think the wealthy, famous, and spoiled in San Diego county would put up with the crap that you outline above?"

Yes I do.

I agree with you. But I don't expect him to roll over if the decision is contrary to his anti constitutional beliefs. He is pro Brady, pro handgun inc.

SoCalCitizen
11-16-2010, 5:44 PM
Thanks firemark.

Someday
11-16-2010, 9:51 PM
Firemark,

great summary, thanks!

ptoguy2002
11-17-2010, 7:56 AM
“If 5% OF THE DUCKS SHOOT BACK, “NO ONE” WOULD GO DUCK HUNTING”


THAT is awesome !