PDA

View Full Version : Peruta: Allan J. Mayer's Brandeis Brief on April 5th 2012


Crom
05-31-2012, 11:45 AM
I had an opportunity to read Allan J. Mayer's Bradeis brief (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Peruta_Friend-of-the-Court-letter-from-Attrney-Allan-J.-Mayer.pdf) filed in the Peruta case. I found it interesting and I have mixed feeling on it. He raises some interesting questions. Has anyone else had a chance to review it?

The latest news in the case can be found here: Peruta v. County of San Diego (http://michellawyers.com/guncasetracker/perutavsandiego/)

jrr
05-31-2012, 12:18 PM
The issues raised are interesting. But the whole thing is so poorly written and sloppy, I find it hard to take seriously. Handwritten corrections? Really?

Librarian
05-31-2012, 12:23 PM
I wonder why he references San Luis Obispo instead of San Diego.

His point: My request is that this court should look into what has been the history of these law-abiding citizens after they have acquired permits in “Shall Issue States” that do not require NEED except self defense in their CCW statute.
My opinion: that's what state legislators should be evaluating when they write or amend laws governing LTC, not something for the court.

Nick Justice
06-01-2012, 8:46 AM
I hope they cleaned up the papers before filing them. The hand-written notes look less than professional.

I wonder why he references San Luis Obispo instead of San Diego.

His point:
My opinion: that's what state legislators should be evaluating when they write or amend laws governing LTC, not something for the court.

Yes. They should. But our state's recent gun law history proves that they won't. Still, we must not give up. We must convince the court that discretionary LTC is unconstitutional.

Imagine requiring a discretionary permit to print a newspaper, or post on a forum, or to vote, write to your senator, or to go to church, get married, have a child, or get an abortion.

dantodd
06-01-2012, 9:23 AM
Yes. They should. But our state's recent gun law history proves that they won't. Still, we must not give up. We must convince the court that discretionary LTC is unconstitutional.


But the courts should determine that based on the actual text of the constitution and stare decisis, not via an analysis of laws around the country.

dantodd
06-01-2012, 10:27 AM
The issues raised are interesting. But the whole thing is so poorly written and sloppy, I find it hard to take seriously. Handwritten corrections? Really?

I believe the handwritten corrections are an artifact of having to fix the copy and PDF conversion drop outs etc. I doubt the physical copy had these handwritten corrections. I am actually thankful someone went through and checked it. I hate reading some of the PDFs posted that get so much dropped in conversion.

jrr
06-01-2012, 11:01 AM
"I believe the handwritten corrections are an artifact of having to fix the copy and PDF conversion drop outs etc. "

Ah... ok then. I am normally not a grammar nazi, lol. But the typos and whatnot distracted from the point of the brief. But in cleaned up form, I think it raises interesting points. A nice rational, and not overtly pro-gun, brief to counter the hand-wringing of the defendant's and their amici about blood in the streets.

I like the tactic of letting the numbers speak for themselves on this issue, and simply pointing out to the judges where those numbers are found, because they are overwhelmingly in our favor.

J.D.Allen
06-01-2012, 11:09 AM
I wonder why he references San Luis Obispo instead of San Diego.

His point:
My opinion: that's what state legislators should be evaluating when they write or amend laws governing LTC, not something for the court.

My sentiments exactly. Look at the quote from his Gura-ness in my sig line. That pretty much sums it up.