|
California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
||||
|
||||
Richards (Carry): Peruta plaintiffs oppose same day/panel
A few days ago SAF & CGF filed a motion to align oral argument in Richards v Prieto as it is related to Peruta which would request hearing by the same panel. Note that we specifically did not ask to change the schedule in Peruta.
For some reason plaintiffs in Peruta are opposed to Richards being heard the same day as they filed this motion earlier today... -Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman Chairman, California Gun Rights Foundation DONATE NOW to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @cgfgunrights on Twitter. Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization. I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly! "The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
NRA Life Member |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Having said what I said above and in the previous post, I need some more lessons too, and still reading... Erik. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
We want Richards and Peruta to be heard at the same time and on Peruta's schedule . This gets both arguments for fixing ccw in front if the judge at the same time. It also means that Richards would not have to worry about a loss in Peruta effecting it. I haven't read the objection yet so I don't know why they are arguing to keep the cases separate.
__________________
Coyote Point Armory 341 Beach Road Burlingame CA 94010 650-315-2210 http://CoyotePointArmory.com |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
I am as yet confused... did somebody forget to coordinate with their friends? Or was there some conflict which prevented the lawyers from discussing the joining of the cases, outside of the courts ?
afaiui, CD Michel is generally a friend of CGF.
__________________
Life SAF Member Life GOA Member EFF Member x7 |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
OK, here is essentially what is going on:
Both the Richards attorneys and the Peruta attorneys are zealously advocating for their client's best interests, which are coming into conflict with each other. The Richards attorneys are making a broad based facial attack on good cause and good moral character, using 1st amendment-style prior restraint doctrine. The Peruta attorneys are making for narrow relief on the narrow aspect of good cause, using Heller and the currently existing equal protection case law with Guillory v. Gates The Richards attorneys want to being related to the Peruta case and aligned with it due to the belief that their clients may not only get relief, their case might be held in abeyance for Peruta, delaying justice for both Adam Richards and Brett Stewart unnecessarily longer. For that reason, the Richards attorneys filed th emotion to align, sacrificing their own "warm up time" that is typically granted to appeals first being heard. The Peruta attorneys are also driven by the same concerns, believing that rather than Richards being aligned with it, they will be aligned with Richards schedule instead, delaying justice for the Peruta plaintiffs even further. These motions are directed to what's called a "Motions Panel". The Motion's panel is a random monthly selection of 3 Circuit Judges who review motions on cases, freeing up the "merit's panel" (which hasn't been assigned yet) to actually reading the actual materials on lead-up to the oral arguments date. So when motions are made to the appeals court, it's being made to the motions panel, until panel assignment is done. The Circuit Court Clerk handles the transition of data and information from the "Motions" Panel to the "Merits" panel. Motions panels can also be hostile to gun owners, too, depending on what the selections are, which is likely the Peruta attorney's concerns. Quote:
I feel for both sets of plaintiffs because I'm a plaintiff in a similar civil rights suit in Denver over carry and it's slightly painful to watch. Last edited by Gray Peterson; 06-08-2011 at 8:43 PM.. |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Otherwise, I'm starting to understand stuff a bit better after reading stuff more than once (it sometimes takes me 2 hours to watch 60 Minutes)... Quote:
Erik. |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#13
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Erik. |
#15
|
||||
|
||||
A couple of points.
1. This is an odd filing from the Peruta plaintiffs. 2. These cases are almost exactly identical - since they came from the same theory and complaint. The only difference is one additional theory - prior restraint - that SAF/CGF added. 3. There is no way that having Richards heard the same day by the same panel will hurt Peruta. 4. This isn't a motion to consolidate or divide time. 5. Is anyone curious about why the Peruta plaintiffs are ok with allowing sheriff's to pass judgement on people's "good moral character" in furtherance of their enumerated fundamental right? 6. Wouldn't having more argument time and more briefing pages brought to bear at the same time be a net positive? 7. Do we all really want to get in a situation where two different panels end up with different decisions on the right to bear arms in California? En banc mess anyone? Curiouser and curiouser... -Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman Chairman, California Gun Rights Foundation DONATE NOW to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @cgfgunrights on Twitter. Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization. I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly! "The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
fundraising?
__________________
Coyote Point Armory 341 Beach Road Burlingame CA 94010 650-315-2210 http://CoyotePointArmory.com |
#17
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Would it matter at this point? If the denial was for A -- and A gets removed, they can't just go back and deny for B, can they? Can a motion to be heard on same day, lead to a joining of arguments? It seems like a good idea if I were in the habit of listening to people argue, might as well hear them at the same time. It does seem like it would push the city more than anyone. I don't doubt that SAF could be ready to argue this next week if they had to. The city on the other hand, would probably get smashed at that point.
__________________
Lawyer, but not your lawyer. Posts aren't legal advice. Last edited by Funtimes; 06-09-2011 at 12:38 AM.. |
#18
|
||||
|
||||
Yes, it does, and yes, they can.
__________________
Brandon Combs I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead. My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer. |
#19
|
||||
|
||||
Has anyone talked to Chuck Michel about this little problem?
__________________
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, but let me remind you also that moderation in the persuit of justice is no virtue" -Barry Goldwater “Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have.” -Gerald Ford ^ |
#20
|
||||
|
||||
Peruta's attorneys make several confusing and patently false claims about Richards.
They mistakenly assert that Richards is a purely facial challenge, made against the State of California as defendant. However, even Judge England was able to understand the Richards complaint, as he wrote in his opinion, “Plaintiffs are not challenging the California statute itself, but instead challenge Yolo County’s interpretation of their statutory authority, namely its Concealed Weapon License Policy.” In a footnote, England further explained that, “The State of California and/or its legislature is not a party to the action.” From here, though, England either deliberately or through inexcusable confusion converted Richards complaint and pleadings into a solely facial attack on the State of California's firearms carry statutes. He ignored the as-applied challenge that was plainly obvious in Richards' Motion for Summary Judgment: Quote:
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
5. Is anyone curious about why the Peruta plaintiffs are ok with allowing sheriff's to pass judgement on people's "good moral character" in furtherance of their enumerated fundamental right?
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume since Peruta was found to have "good moral character", then his counsel figures that is a fight for another day, another plaintiff. They didn't want to fight on extra fronts if they don't have to. As far as everything else goes, I can only assume timing is the reason Peruta doesn't want to be consolidated with Richards. A snag in Richards (counsel gets sick, scheduling conflicts,exc.) will mean a snag w/Peruta. I guess they don't want to get bogged down and then have some US v. Crackhead case sneak past them and torpedo the whole thing. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
This is a great thing Chuck Michel did for us and is the result of a political decision reflecting the strong devide between CRPA/NRA and CGF/Gura beliefs on the proper legal strategy. Gura wants to ride the NRA coat tails because Michel has put together a much better argument.
|
#23
|
||||
|
||||
Welcome and strange 1st post? Are you saying this tongue n cheek or are you serious?
__________________
False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. -- Cesare Beccaria http://www.a-human-right.com/ |
#25
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#26
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
What else would you expect from Mr. Birdt?
__________________
NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA Life Member / SAF Life Member Calguns.net an incorported entity - President. The Calguns Shooting Sports Assoc. - Vice President. The California Rifle & Pistol Assoc. - Director. DONATE TO NRA-ILA, CGSSA, AND CRPAF NOW! Opinions posted in this account are my own and unless specifically stated as such are not the approved position of Calguns.net, CGSSA or CRPA. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
probably a good second thought it came across at the end as somewhat confrontational. And probably wasnt helpful. But i wish you luck and i'm routing for you.
With all the dog piling to back this up and now its back to go it alone.... reading these two cases over and over i keep seeing them as necessarily intertwined yet this muscle flexing seems to keep ringing that old sound in the back of my head "divided and conquered". The in fighting and p'ing matches on our side seem to always accomplish that, those who oppose the 2nd amendment love to watch broad far-reaching hard to counter cases be divided into more narrow arguments by two factions who have equal objectives but can't seem to overcome their ego's or ideals. Time will tell and judge where this goes.... Is it D-Day on the Normandy Coast, or just the Battle for Sicily where our own stall us out (think Patton(Gura) being told to slow down by Ike (NRA))? Will we win the small battle yet prolong this front of the war? Or will the smaller and narrower puerta argument lay the foundation for better Richards footing regardless of the Delay
__________________
NRA Life member, multi organization continued donor etc etc etc Last edited by ddestruel; 06-09-2011 at 12:03 PM.. |
#28
|
||||
|
||||
I think the Richards folks are trying to make sure the weakness of the Peruta case does not hurt them in the long run. As someone else posted above, the cases are actually not identical, nor are the issues. Peruta makes this clear in their opposition. Peruta states that they initially challenged 12050 head on. Now it's just challenging the Sheriff/Chief's discretion on Good cause, and asking that self defense be considered good cause.
The weakness in Peruta is that it does not challenge good moral character. These sheriffs are not so dumb. You take away their discretion on good cause, they'll start denying on "good moral character". Think about it, if the discretion is unfettered (and it is) "bad" moral character might be: 1. A drunk driving conviction 15 years ago 2. Medical marijuana use 3. Speeding tickets 4. Citations for building a garage without a permit Do I need to go on? I think the Richards folks are trying to get Peruta on board to a facial challenge of 12050, and rightly so. Of course if I was reprepsenting Peruta, I would probably tell the Richards folks to pound sand. (Of course, I would not have made my challenge as narrow as they did) |
#29
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Just who in the hell is the civilian public employee at the SD County licensing office to judge anyone? Can we FOIA their personnel file? Search out their school transcripts? Interview their neighbors about their behavior? Talk to their college room mates? Could they withstand the same scrutiny? How would they enjoy being subjected the process? WHO MADE THEM GOD?
__________________
|
#30
|
||||
|
||||
This sounds like a pissing contest between NRA and Alan Gura again.
I'll defer to the two time supreme court winner when it comes to legal strategy. I'm just plain embarrassed and disappointed when I see things like this. We are better than this, we need to work together. |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Quite, and what I originally was thinking... This question could have been asked OUTSIDE of court, rather than the adversarial court system. Here's to hoping nobody involved takes this slight personally.
__________________
Life SAF Member Life GOA Member EFF Member x7 |
#32
|
||||
|
||||
Can this be worked out quickly?
Quote:
If there is anything that anti groups like Brady, LCAV, MAIG, etc. are more afraid of than anything else, it's groups like CGF, NRA, SAF, CRPA, GOA, GOCA, GS2AC, JPFO, PPoSF and others all sticking together on the one issue that our right needs to be furthered, and actually working together. All of these organizations, as well as the ones that focus on more broad conservative issues, one of them being 2A, combined, make for a total membership base of 6 Million plus. Is there any way that things could be worked out in a timely fashion so that this litigation effort could be as successful as possible? Maximum success is what I'm hoping for, but the bickering has got to end in order for that to happen. Erik. |
#33
|
||||
|
||||
Please don't over-read the situation that much....
Attorneys are obligated to do what they think are best for their specific clients' case.
__________________
Bill Wiese San Jose, CA CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member
No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer. |
#35
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
And yet, the Richards camp did not think to mention this motion to the Peruta camp. Common courtesy would have thought that doing so might have avoided this controversy.
__________________
John -- bitter gun owner. All opinions expressed here are my own unless I say otherwise. I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. |
#36
|
||||
|
||||
Good move since your lawyer didn't pre-bless what you said. I'm cheering for you to win one for all of us, and who knows what the other side might be able to use against you. Hopefully your next official public statement will be "victory!".
|
#37
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
John -- bitter gun owner. All opinions expressed here are my own unless I say otherwise. I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. |
#38
|
||||
|
||||
Have you ever looked at the timeline in the cases and how Peruta happened?
I know everyone is trying to play nice now but how many times is the NRA going to try to mess up an Alan Gura/SAF case? |
#39
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
And your second paragraph? You really think that Chuck Michel/NRA is trying to mess up Alan Gura by refusing to bend over backwards when Gura demands, without even notifying Michel first, that Peruta effectively delays his case by three months, just so the Peruta arguments and the Richards arguments can be heard together?
__________________
John -- bitter gun owner. All opinions expressed here are my own unless I say otherwise. I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. |
#40
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Just sayin', not trying to put words into any parties mouths.
__________________
-- Rifle, Pistol, Shotgun Not a lawyer, just a former LEO proud to have served. Quote:
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|