Calguns.net

Calguns.net (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/index.php)
-   California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/forumdisplay.php?f=71)
-   -   Activity in Richards & Peruta (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=650960)

hoffmang 11-30-2012 10:12 PM

Activity in Richards & Peruta
 
Thursday morning, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order in both Richards and Peruta stating the following:

Quote:

At oral argument, the parties should be prepared to discuss the significance, if any, of the absence of the State of California in this appeal. See 28 U.S.C. ß2403; Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.1.
Later that day, Alan Gura responded with this 28j Letter (attachment 1, 2 and 3.)

Some of you have heard some of us remind that one should not lightly take on the task of challenging laws under the Second Amendment. This development tends to be evidence of why we say that.

-Gene

wildhawker 11-30-2012 10:14 PM

:gura:

Gray Peterson 11-30-2012 10:18 PM


wildhawker 11-30-2012 10:24 PM

Perhaps one might consider, as a plaintiff seeking to litigate a substantial and critical constitutional law case, that their attorney should, you know, know the law.

"Mr. Neuharth has the highest rate of set asides on Drivers' License suspensions according to DMV statistics, published pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act." (http://paulneuharth.com)

Fascinating statistic. However, California has no "Freedom of Information Act." It does, however, have a Public Records Act (Cal. Govt. Code section 6250, et seq.).

Something I would think a lawyer bringing such a substantial and critical constitutional law case might not overlook. Or a well-researched plaintiff, for that matter.

-Brandon

RMP91 11-30-2012 10:31 PM

Seriously, what's with these DPs?!

RMP91 11-30-2012 10:31 PM

GP using the losing horn sound from The Price is Right game show has me concerned, and I'm not fluent in Legalese so forgive me if the question I am about to ask is dumb...

Are we losing?

AlexDD 11-30-2012 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RMP91 (Post 9826421)
GP using the losing horn sound from The Price is Right game show has me concerned, and I'm not fluent in Legalese so forgive me if the question I am about to ask is dumb...

Are we losing?

I am no attorney nor did I sleep in a holiday inn, but it appears in one case, Richards, provided the proper required notification, and the other case, peruta, did not.

A comparison is being made of the handling of the two cases.

BMartin1776 11-30-2012 10:51 PM

does any of it matter when the demoncrats now hold a supermajority. Just a matter of time till they outlaw the thought of owning a gun

CaliforniaLiberal 11-30-2012 10:56 PM

Is this like the 9th Circuit asking Alan Gura if he's turned in his homework yet and Alan telling the 9th Circuit he turned it in two weeks ago, the day after he got the assignment?

But that San Diego guy running Peruta has a bad dog who likes to eat homework....

Is it like that?

CitaDeL 11-30-2012 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BMartin1776 (Post 9826534)
does any of it matter when the demoncrats now hold a supermajority. Just a matter of time till they outlaw the thought of owning a gun

uh wut?

The judiciary is a whole different ball of wax.

jdberger 11-30-2012 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaliforniaLiberal (Post 9826562)
Is this like the 9th Circuit asking Alan Gura if he's turned in his homework yet and Alan telling the 9th Circuit he turned it in two weeks ago, the day after he got the assignment?

But that San Diego guy running Peruta has a bad dog who likes to eat homework....

Is it like that?

Pretty much.

moleculo 11-30-2012 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlexDD (Post 9826510)
I am no attorney nor did I sleep in a holiday inn, but it appears in one case, Richards, provided the proper required notification, and the other case, Richards, did not.

A comparison is being made of the handling of the two cases.

Correction to your post: Richards provided the proper notification to the State; Peruta, it appears, did not.

Purple K 11-30-2012 11:09 PM

286 words of Gura in your face :eek:

anthonyca 11-30-2012 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BMartin1776 (Post 9826534)
does any of it matter when the demoncrats now hold a supermajority. Just a matter of time till they outlaw the thought of owning a gun

I am no lawyer or history scholar but I did notice a similarity in some cases that are among the most important in our republic. Heller, McDonald, Sykes and some others (MD carry case) second amendment cases were against who? Chicago and DC.

In this war, California is the western front. DC, New Jersey, Massachusetts and New York are the eastern front. Chicago is the enemy behind the gates. Wars are won or lost on the front lines, not by claiming battle fatigue and resting in the rear.

The second amendment will be defined in court because of an anti state and that is MUCH harder to reverse than a currently friendly legislature in a free state.

Please join the cause and donate.

Ryan_D 11-30-2012 11:17 PM

I am adept enough to sort of understand what the documents are saying, but not quite clear as to their impact. Can a brief explanation be provided?

nicki 11-30-2012 11:22 PM

Interesting lack of state action.
 
It is interesting that the state isn't involved in these cases, especially since there has been a change of Attorney Generals and Kamilla Harris is not exactly our friend.

Perhaps Kamilla Harris herself has problems with the equal rights issues under the cases and doesn't want to try to defend undefendable positions.

Perhaps she may realize that it may be wise to avoid all gun related litigation until the courts settle the law on many issues.

Nicki

AlexDD 11-30-2012 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moleculo (Post 9826588)
Correction to your post: Richards provided the proper notification to the State; Peruta, it appears, did not.

Thank U. In my haste I repeated Richards

Tincon 11-30-2012 11:35 PM

While it would have been better, in my opinion, to serve the notice, this is a relatively toothless rule. A party’s failure to file and serve a notice of a constitutional challenge to a state statute does not result in a forfeiture by any party of any constitutional claim that the party has timely asserted in the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.1(d)

It might be possible that the court would sanction the responsible attorney under ß 1927, however at this point in the appeal that seems pretty unlikely, especially considering the lower court also had an obligation to notify, and either failed to do so, or if it did then it is a somewhat moot issue. Worst case scenario here is remand back to the lower court to give the AG a chance to intervene. But considering that the the AG did receive notification in Richards and did not intervene, remand seems unlikely.

So I'm not sure the development is terribly important.

wildhawker 11-30-2012 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nicki (Post 9826688)
Perhaps Kamilla Harris herself has problems with the equal rights issues under the cases and doesn't want to try to defend undefendable positions.

Such would be a certain departure from her years in San Francisco.

Quote:

Perhaps she may realize that it may be wise to avoid all gun related litigation until the courts settle the law on many issues.

Nicki
I rather think that's not it at all.

-Brandon

hornswaggled 11-30-2012 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaliforniaLiberal (Post 9826562)
Is this like the 9th Circuit asking Alan Gura if he's turned in his homework yet and Alan telling the 9th Circuit he turned it in two weeks ago, the day after he got the assignment?

But that San Diego guy running Peruta has a bad dog who likes to eat homework....

Is it like that?

That's as much as I can gather from it. Sort of like...

9th Circuit: "Yo, where's both your stuff?"
Richards plantiffs: "Yo, you got mines already. (Looking at Peruta plantiffs) Don't even axe me about him, I ain't even wit him."

hoffmang 11-30-2012 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tincon (Post 9826752)
So I'm not sure the development is terribly important.

60 days can really matter at this level.

-Gene

CaliforniaLiberal 12-01-2012 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tincon (Post 9826752)
While it would have been better, in my opinion, to serve the notice, this is a relatively toothless rule. A partyís failure to file and serve a notice of a constitutional challenge to a state statute does not result in a forfeiture by any party of any constitutional claim that the party has timely asserted in the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.1(d)

It might be possible that the court would sanction the responsible attorney under ß 1927, however at this point in the appeal that seems pretty unlikely, especially considering the lower court also had an obligation to notify, and either failed to do so, or if it did then it is a somewhat moot issue. Worst case scenario here is remand back to the lower court to give the AG a chance to intervene. But considering that the the AG did receive notification in Richards and did not intervene, remand seems unlikely.

So I'm not sure the development is terribly important.



Pull up a chair and be welcome to CalGuns Tincon!

Meplat 12-01-2012 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CitaDeL (Post 9826563)
uh wut?

The judiciary is a whole different ball of wax.

Not for long.

Meplat 12-01-2012 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoffmang (Post 9826844)
60 days can really matter at this level.

-Gene

Do you think this is a straw dog delaying tactic by the court. Looks like Lucy snatching that football again to me.

Gray Peterson 12-01-2012 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meplat (Post 9826975)
Do you think this is a straw dog delaying tactic by the court. Looks like Lucy snatching that football again to me.

For Peruta, that's unfortunate they didn't follow the proper procedures. For Richards, they did.

IVC 12-01-2012 1:49 AM

Looks like a dig at Peruta and light gloating related to infighting. Not taking sides, but the initial post is a bit dramatic for a procedural issue, resulting in quite a few confused readers (including myself initially).

The real question is whether there is any damage done. Since the cases are not consolidated, as per Gura's last paragraph, he is pleading that there be no delay in Richards. This looks like it should be a routine "all clear."

Gray Peterson 12-01-2012 3:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IVC (Post 9827225)
Looks like a dig at Peruta and light gloating related to infighting. Not taking sides, but the initial post is a bit dramatic for a procedural issue, resulting in quite a few confused readers (including myself initially).

The real question is whether there is any damage done. Since the cases are not consolidated, as per Gura's last paragraph, he is pleading that there be no delay in Richards. This looks like it should be a routine "all clear."

Peruta copycatted Sykes, which was the original name of Richards v. Prieto before Sykes & the Sacramento defendants were dropped from the case due to Sacramento's change in policy. Mr. Peruta was the only plaintiff on the case between September of 2009 & March of 2010.

Original Peruta Complaint

The prayer for relief was for enjoining the enforcement of the good cause & good moral character statutes directly, both facially & as applied.

There's a statutory requirement with Section 1983 lawsuits that when you can challenge the constitutionality of a state law, or how a state law is interpreted, you are required to notify the state attorney general's office within 60 days. In the end, the responsibility of the notification lies with the plaintiff parties, not with the district court.

At no time, during the era when the case was under sole control of attorney Paul Neuharth, did they comply with that requirement. At all.

6 months after the complaint was filed, an amended complaint was filed and the case was taken over by Chuck Michel & Associates. Though it was narrowed to challenging the way the sheriff enforced "good cause", no notification was made to the state to let them know that the statute was in any way being challenged in any way.

Then Paul Clement got attached to the case when it went to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. No notification was made (though I think as soon as the 60 days expired after the amended complaint, the case was fatally wounded), and now a member of the 9th Circuit Panel is wondering why the State of California is not a party to the case.

Regardless of Judge Gonzalez proceeding as if notification is not required, the 9th Circuit will essentially vacate & remand back to the district court to have them start over freshly, with the proper notifications to allow the State of California (as represented by the Attorney General's Office) to be a governmental-intervening party. If they had done so as the then-Sykes/now-Richards parties did while then AG Brown was still in office, the AG at that time would not have intervened, and the window for having the mighty force of the State of California Attorney General's Office involved in their case would have been closed.

You can, however, believe that AG Kamala Harris would intervene if given opportunity.

Luckily, for the Richards plaintiffs, they complied with the 60 day notify requirement and because of that, have foreclosed any involvement by state of California and their are only facing the hired guns (lawyers) for the county of Yolo.

Unluckily, for the Peruta plaintiff lawyers (Neuharth, Michel/Associates, and Clement), because of their lack of compliance with the state AG notification requirement, even the 9th Circuit sends back the case to have it all redone from scratch, all the Section 1988 billable hours from after the notification requirement window the first time around (around October of 2009) until it's sent back down to district to redo it all again, are now unrecoverable. That includes Mr. Clement's $1000/hour fee for his involvement in the case.

Anywhere from tens of thousands to potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars in NRA-ILA/CRPAF money was just tossed down the drain that cannot be recovered from the San Diego Treasury in attorney fees. That money comes from your NRA memberships & donations to NRA-ILA, and also any donations you make to CRPAF as well.

Mr. Clement, rather than making merits arguments on 2A, will likely get tied into a knot in re the notification issue during his 20 minutes of argument.

That leaves Mr. Gura for Richards to argue the 2A merits, along with whoever is arguing for Chris Baker (Funtimes) & HDF in Baker v. Keoloha.

The point of the OP was not about "gloating" and "infighting". It's about pointing out actual examples of lack of competence with basic federal rules of civil procedure that must be complied with, that people who have no business filing federal lawsuits should not be doing vanguard civil litigation in this fashion.

Perhaps after oral argument, where we can see the results of the damage done by this bungled situation, NRA members should call up ILA, and CRPA members call up CRPA Foundation, and ask them why they are paying for massive mistakes such as this apparent horror show.

OleCuss 12-01-2012 5:02 AM

Gray:

That explanation is greatly appreciated. Made things nice and clear.

And, unfortunately, IIRC this was the case which Chuck Michel had in mind when he told the legislature that if they banned UOC then it was pretty much a lock that the state would have to go shall issue.

If this case goes "poof" I will consider this to be a major disappointment.

I hope the lawyers can go back and find precedent which shows that the failure to file the notice should not kill their case. I don't know how bad the odds are.

Mulay El Raisuli 12-01-2012 6:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gray Peterson (Post 9827342)
<SNIP>
That leaves Mr. Gura for Richards to argue the 2A merits, along with whoever is arguing for Chris Baker (Funtimes) & HDF in Baker v. Keoloha.


Which is not a bad thing.


Quote:

Originally Posted by nicki (Post 9826688)
It is interesting that the state isn't involved in these cases, especially since there has been a change of Attorney Generals and Kamilla Harris is not exactly our friend.

Perhaps Kamilla Harris herself has problems with the equal rights issues under the cases and doesn't want to try to defend undefendable positions.

Perhaps she may realize that it may be wise to avoid all gun related litigation until the courts settle the law on many issues.

Nicki


Letting others fight your battles is a sure way to lose on an issue near & dear to your heart. She's not that dumb, is she?


The Raisuli

Ford8N 12-01-2012 7:37 AM

Ok.....read the whole thread. Is this a bad thing? Not clear....

CitaDeL 12-01-2012 7:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ford8N (Post 9827690)
Ok.....read the whole thread. Is this a bad thing? Not clear....

Its bad from the perspective that someone doing it right was lumped with someone doing it wrong... and further delayed our chance of arriving at the next step in getting a resolution.

eville 12-01-2012 8:10 AM

I'm no expert, but I think the general sense is this is somewhere between good and not bad. Likely Richards will move ahead of Sykes on the timeline because of this. The sooner we get a ruling and hopefully a circuit split, then we can proceed to SCOTUS and then finally secure carry throughout the land.
I think the general consensus among CGF is that Richards is the better case for this than Peruta since, Peruta is clearly a "copy" of Richards.

IVC 12-01-2012 8:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gray Peterson (Post 9827342)
...It's about pointing out actual examples of lack of competence with basic federal rules of civil procedure that must be complied with, that people who have no business filing federal lawsuits should not be doing vanguard civil litigation in this fashion.

Thanks for this valuable post that explains what happened and what the consequences are. It would be impossible to deduce all of this just from the latest filings without knowing the code of civil procedure. This post should be moved to the top to provide context for the thread.

hoffmang 12-01-2012 11:18 AM

It's not clear that even AG Harris wants to defend this. The problem is that many and maybe even most sheriffs do administer the licensing procedure constitutionally. Those sheriffs are not without quite a bit of political clout in Sacramento. Further, both the pro gun and the anti gun sheriffs do not want to cede control to the state on this issue.

-Gene

wildhawker 12-01-2012 11:33 AM

The sheriffs don't touch carry politically because it splits their caucus. Carry's an effective no-touch subject for CSSA; to wit, we're still running on the old PC numbering for the official DOJ carry license application over a year after the changeover (whereas the DOJ forms have been out for a long time now). DOJ wanted to clean it up, and CSSA wanted to talk budget.

Whatever forces are at work, it's not CSSA.

-Brandon

Meplat 12-01-2012 9:42 PM

OK; I think I understand what happened, but it seems that we have only speculation as to what happens next. I think the confusion regarding this development amongst the CGN rank and file is due to the fact that most of us don’t know enough about legal procedure to ask the right questions; and those who do know enough already know the answers.

Questions:

Can the ninth circuit still combine Peruta and Prieto if it wants? We have had much speculation about what they should do, and what they probably will do; much of it sounding to me like whistling in the grave yard. What I would like to know is; what is the worst they can do.

Can the AG still get involved in Prieto as a defendant if it is combined with Peruta?

If it is not combined and they remand Peruta can the court direct the plaintiff in Peruta to clean up its case and do its notifications, and then, if the AG gets involved, say they must wait for the outcome in Peruta before they rule in Prieto?

If they can and do combine the cases, can Prieto be remanded back in conjunction with Peruta, even though Gura did everything correctly?

Please; not what should happen or might happen, but what is the worst case scenario?

I don’t think the 9th gives a fig about doing the right thing. They don’t want to find for us and they know we want them to find against us. So what is their most productive tactic? Delay us!

The pertinent judges of the 9th knew what happened. Why did Gura have to splain it to them again? Why the **** grenade one week before orals? I smell a rat!

BrokerB 12-01-2012 10:58 PM

Why did nra/crpa choose this way? Personal ?

Funtimes 12-02-2012 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meplat (Post 9832364)
OK; I think I understand what happened, but it seems that we have only speculation as to what happens next. I think the confusion regarding this development amongst the CGN rank and file is due to the fact that most of us donít know enough about legal procedure to ask the right questions; and those who do know enough already know the answers.

Questions:

Can the ninth circuit still combine Peruta and Prieto if it wants? We have had much speculation about what they should do, and what they probably will do; much of it sounding to me like whistling in the grave yard. What I would like to know is; what is the worst they can do.

Can the AG still get involved in Prieto as a defendant if it is combined with Peruta?

If it is not combined and they remand Peruta can the court direct the plaintiff in Peruta to clean up its case and do its notifications, and then, if the AG gets involved, say they must wait for the outcome in Peruta before they rule in Prieto?

If they can and do combine the cases, can Prieto be remanded back in conjunction with Peruta, even though Gura did everything correctly?

Please; not what should happen or might happen, but what is the worst case scenario?

I donít think the 9th gives a fig about doing the right thing. They donít want to find for us and they know we want them to find against us. So what is their most productive tactic? Delay us!

The pertinent judges of the 9th knew what happened. Why did Gura have to splain it to them again? Why the **** grenade one week before orals? I smell a rat!

That they get combined would probably not be a snow balls's chance. Our case is going to be heard, no matter what happens to Peruta; the same thing probably also applies to Richards, especially since they followed the rules for notification.

Baja Daze 12-02-2012 2:16 AM

Gray, thanks for the outstanding synopsis/explanation. However, should we even care about Peruta since this case is a copycat of Richards (Sykes) and the Richards case has Gura as "our ace on the mound" pitching for our rights? So...does Peruta bring anything to the table that we need, that is not in Richards?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gray Peterson (Post 9827342)
Peruta copycatted Sykes, which was the original name of Richards v. Prieto before Sykes & the Sacramento defendants were dropped from the case due to Sacramento's change in policy. Mr. Peruta was the only plaintiff on the case between September of 2009 & March of 2010.

Original Peruta Complaint

The prayer for relief was for enjoining the enforcement of the good cause & good moral character statutes directly, both facially & as applied.

There's a statutory requirement with Section 1983 lawsuits that when you can challenge the constitutionality of a state law, or how a state law is interpreted, you are required to notify the state attorney general's office within 60 days. In the end, the responsibility of the notification lies with the plaintiff parties, not with the district court.

At no time, during the era when the case was under sole control of attorney Paul Neuharth, did they comply with that requirement. At all.

6 months after the complaint was filed, an amended complaint was filed and the case was taken over by Chuck Michel & Associates. Though it was narrowed to challenging the way the sheriff enforced "good cause", no notification was made to the state to let them know that the statute was in any way being challenged in any way.

Then Paul Clement got attached to the case when it went to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. No notification was made (though I think as soon as the 60 days expired after the amended complaint, the case was fatally wounded), and now a member of the 9th Circuit Panel is wondering why the State of California is not a party to the case.

Regardless of Judge Gonzalez proceeding as if notification is not required, the 9th Circuit will essentially vacate & remand back to the district court to have them start over freshly, with the proper notifications to allow the State of California (as represented by the Attorney General's Office) to be a governmental-intervening party. If they had done so as the then-Sykes/now-Richards parties did while then AG Brown was still in office, the AG at that time would not have intervened, and the window for having the mighty force of the State of California Attorney General's Office involved in their case would have been closed.

You can, however, believe that AG Kamala Harris would intervene if given opportunity.

Luckily, for the Richards plaintiffs, they complied with the 60 day notify requirement and because of that, have foreclosed any involvement by state of California and their are only facing the hired guns (lawyers) for the county of Yolo.

Unluckily, for the Peruta plaintiff lawyers (Neuharth, Michel/Associates, and Clement), because of their lack of compliance with the state AG notification requirement, even the 9th Circuit sends back the case to have it all redone from scratch, all the Section 1988 billable hours from after the notification requirement window the first time around (around October of 2009) until it's sent back down to district to redo it all again, are now unrecoverable. That includes Mr. Clement's $1000/hour fee for his involvement in the case.

Anywhere from tens of thousands to potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars in NRA-ILA/CRPAF money was just tossed down the drain that cannot be recovered from the San Diego Treasury in attorney fees. That money comes from your NRA memberships & donations to NRA-ILA, and also any donations you make to CRPAF as well.

Mr. Clement, rather than making merits arguments on 2A, will likely get tied into a knot in re the notification issue during his 20 minutes of argument.

That leaves Mr. Gura for Richards to argue the 2A merits, along with whoever is arguing for Chris Baker (Funtimes) & HDF in Baker v. Keoloha.

The point of the OP was not about "gloating" and "infighting". It's about pointing out actual examples of lack of competence with basic federal rules of civil procedure that must be complied with, that people who have no business filing federal lawsuits should not be doing vanguard civil litigation in this fashion.

Perhaps after oral argument, where we can see the results of the damage done by this bungled situation, NRA members should call up ILA, and CRPA members call up CRPA Foundation, and ask them why they are paying for massive mistakes such as this apparent horror show.


Gray Peterson 12-02-2012 3:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baja Daze (Post 9833536)
Gray, thanks for the outstanding synopsis/explanation. However, should we even care about Peruta since this case is a copycat of Richards (Sykes) and the Richards case has Gura as "our ace on the mound" pitching for our rights? So...does Peruta bring anything to the table that we need, that is not in Richards?

It does not. Peruta was filed 4 months after Richards (Sykes) in district court. The only reason it went anywhere was because Judge Gonzalez refused to stay the case for Nordyke case in the 9th Circuit, unlike Judge Morrison in Richards.

The Peruta amended complaint is woefully under-inclusive, because it attacks only one aspect of the may issue nature of California (good cause only).

For example: If Peruta were resolved in favor of the plaintiff-appellants, it would not grant the relief that the Richards plaintiffs seek.

However, if the relief was granted to Richards to the extent asked for in the Second Amended Complaint & Plaintiff MSJ's, that would satisfy the Peruta prayer for relief as they asked for in the amended complaint and the Partial Motion for Summary Judgement they asked for.

Simply put:

If Richards wins, therefor Peruta would win because Richards wider win would have subsumed Peruta's.

Peruta wins their prayer, Richards would not be satisfied as they would only get partially what they wanted.

As an aside:

This whole thing started because one man decided that he wasn't going to wait for Sykes to get done. Because the Sykes federal lawsuit was a facial challenge to the prior restraint that was good cause & good moral character, a single federal judge can make a ruling against a state statute in that fashion, and the entire state law is enjoined beyond the named parties (see Brown v. Entertainment Software Association), to every sheriff who enforces the two may-issue provisions (GC/GMC).

Instead, he believed that his voice, along with his lawyer who had little federal litigation experience on constitutional rights, was needed to start doing water color panting on "Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel" painting that Alan Gura was creating that is our modern Second Amendment.

Richards ruling in district court heavily cited Peruta. Strong possibility that if Peruta was not there, the judge might have ruled our way. Hard to rule against a fellow judge on near the same law.

Peterson ruling in district court heavily cited Peruta.

Peruta was cited in denials to two test San Mateo County applicants who applied for self defense. Bad ruling came out on Friday, their denials came 4 days later on Monday.

Numerous district court rulings on carry cited Peruta as the first in a line of bad district court cases.

All because one man just had to file a lawsuit. He just had to, you see. He had no choice but to spend $300 on a filing fee in district court, you see, because he just had to file a lawsuit. He just had to! He was gonna fix California all by his lonesome!


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 4:06 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.