View Single Post
  #40  
Old 12-02-2012, 3:41 AM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baja Daze View Post
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!

Last edited by Gray Peterson; 12-02-2012 at 3:59 AM..