Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-01-2010, 9:16 PM
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,485
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default CGF Supported Case: Peterson v. LaCabe (Denver)

All,

I'm pleased to announce that today, John Monroe of Georgia Carry fame filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in Peterson v. LaCabe. This is a case brought by our own Gray Peterson (who is a WA resident but spends lots of time here in California helping the fight) challenging Denver and Colorado's lack of carry license reciprocity and lack of an ability to issue carry licenses to out of state residents.

The Calguns Foundation has been providing legal support and, while not directly paying for the costs, is providing assistance raising funds for this challenge. This helps all out of state residents as it will either force issuance of permits to out of state individuals or will widen the scope of Colorado's reciprocity.

Please donate to the Peterson v. Lacabe fund by one of the following means:

Paypal:


Or send a check or money order to:
Calguns Foundation
751 Laurel Street Suite 935
San Carlos, CA 94070-3113
Mark on the check "Peterson v. LaCabe"

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn 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

Last edited by hoffmang; 10-30-2010 at 11:02 AM.. Reason: Updated mailing address
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-01-2010, 9:53 PM
Window_Seat's Avatar
Window_Seat Window_Seat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Phoenix, AZ (The United States of America)
Posts: 3,540
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Thumbs up

This is good news. Thanks, Gray. I've always looked at your posts as a positive light with respect to CCW knowledge. Money coming very soon for this effort!

Erik.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-01-2010, 10:06 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,818
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default This was the case I was hinting at at various different threads

This was the case I was hinting at with the various different threads that I've posted about "Bearing arms" and "non-resident licenses".

Someone here might ask "Why Denver and Colorado?" rather than California?

1) Unlike California, Colorado Statute has a provision in it that specifically identifies acquirement of a CHL to further the constitutional right to self defense. This weakens the argument of Denver, which has fight bitterly against the state of Colorado for almost 4 years before being fought to a stand-still in front of the Colorado Supreme Court before winning partially 3-3

2) This case has been in the planning stages for almost 2 years. I had to go down to Denver to apply, and was denied on paper, which gave me Article III standing automatically.

3) Denver has an open carry ban as well as a concealed carry ban. The only way one may carry in Denver is concealed with a CHL. Since Denver refuses to allow open carry, they must allow concealed carry in some form. At the moment, the MSJ is very narrowly focused to striking down the ban on non-residents of the state applying for licenses from Denver.

4) We are also challenging the ban on recognition of non-resident licenses (I have licenses from Florida, Utah, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania), which was passed in 2007 in response to incidents where someone was carrying as a Colorado resident on an out of state license. Rather than fixing the issue similar to Arizona, Washington State, and Kansas, they chose to overreach. The MSJ at this moment is solely against LaCabe as Manager of Safety of the City/County of Denver in terms of issuance of licenses. There may be a further MSJ or trial against the Peter Weir, who is the Executive Director of Colorado DPS.

5) California residents are effected by the Colorado situation as well, as they cannot travel to the most populated city in one state and bear arms effectively, due to the Colorado Legislature's overreach.

6) This will influence case law outside of Colorado, as we used the denial of the Peruta v. County of San Diego motion to dismiss to bolster our case. All cases such as this feed into each other in terms of supporting each other. If this goes all the way to SCOTUS, will be able to force the states such as CA, OR, HI, NY, NJ, MI, and a few other jurisdictions that currently escape me, to issue license to carry (bear arms) for personal protection regardless their "in-state residency". More importantly, a positive decision at ANY level can help us with Sykes, Palmer, and several other cases.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-01-2010, 10:14 PM
obeygiant's Avatar
obeygiant obeygiant is offline
Veteran Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Behind the Orange Curtain
Posts: 4,159
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Great news indeed, Thank you Gray and CGF!
__________________

Member, CRPA Board of Directors
"No one could make a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little." - Edmund Burke

Search Calguns using Google
CGN Search plugin for Firefox & IE CA Shotgun AW ID Flowchart CA Handgun AW ID Flowchart CA Senate CA Assembly Anti-2A Search Plugin
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-01-2010, 10:20 PM
2009_gunner's Avatar
2009_gunner 2009_gunner is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 472
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Attacking on multiple fronts. Way to go.
__________________
It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.” Grotesque. - DC v. Heller

NRA Member / CRPA Member / SAF Member / San Diego CCW Sponsor
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-01-2010, 10:22 PM
trashman's Avatar
trashman trashman is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The Great Valley
Posts: 3,816
iTrader: 37 / 100%
Default

Great news - thanks for your efforts, Gray!

--Neill
__________________
http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee126/northslope/2011__orig.jpg
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-02-2010, 12:16 AM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,818
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default The conclusion

Under intermediate scrutiny, the system must “directly advance a substantial governmental interest and be no more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest.” Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. v. United States, 176 L.Ed.2d 79, 94; 2010 U.S. LEXIS 2206, 36 (2010). Given that Colorado allows both its own residents and the residents of 28 other states to exercise the right to carry handguns throughout the state, Defendant will be hard-pressed to articulate a “substantial government interest” in preventing Washington residents from exercising that right.

The Colorado system, applied by Defendant to Plaintiff, prohibits Plaintiff from exercising a fundamental constitutional right solely on account of his Washington residency, even though residents of Colorado and 28 other states are freely allowed to exercise that right. This wrong can readily be remedied. Colorado has in place a system for issuing CHLs. Defendant administers that system in the City and County of Denver. Defendant should be ordered to disregard Plaintiff’s residency status and process Plaintiff’s CHL application accordingly.


One of those 22 states is California.

Last edited by Gray Peterson; 06-02-2010 at 12:34 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-02-2010, 3:39 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,377
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
This was the case I was hinting at with the various different threads that I've posted about "Bearing arms" and "non-resident licenses".

Someone here might ask "Why Denver and Colorado?" rather than California?

1) Unlike California, Colorado Statute has a provision in it that specifically identifies acquirement of a CHL to further the constitutional right to self defense. This weakens the argument of Denver, which has fight bitterly against the state of Colorado for almost 4 years before being fought to a stand-still in front of the Colorado Supreme Court before winning partially 3-3

2) This case has been in the planning stages for almost 2 years. I had to go down to Denver to apply, and was denied on paper, which gave me Article III standing automatically.

3) Denver has an open carry ban as well as a concealed carry ban. The only way one may carry in Denver is concealed with a CHL. Since Denver refuses to allow open carry, they must allow concealed carry in some form. At the moment, the MSJ is very narrowly focused to striking down the ban on non-residents of the state applying for licenses from Denver.

4) We are also challenging the ban on recognition of non-resident licenses (I have licenses from Florida, Utah, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania), which was passed in 2007 in response to incidents where someone was carrying as a Colorado resident on an out of state license. Rather than fixing the issue similar to Arizona, Washington State, and Kansas, they chose to overreach. The MSJ at this moment is solely against LaCabe as Manager of Safety of the City/County of Denver in terms of issuance of licenses. There may be a further MSJ or trial against the Peter Weir, who is the Executive Director of Colorado DPS.

5) California residents are effected by the Colorado situation as well, as they cannot travel to the most populated city in one state and bear arms effectively, due to the Colorado Legislature's overreach.

6) This will influence case law outside of Colorado, as we used the denial of the Peruta v. County of San Diego motion to dismiss to bolster our case. All cases such as this feed into each other in terms of supporting each other. If this goes all the way to SCOTUS, will be able to force the states such as CA, OR, HI, NY, NJ, MI, and a few other jurisdictions that currently escape me, to issue license to carry (bear arms) for personal protection regardless their "in-state residency". More importantly, a positive decision at ANY level can help us with Sykes, Palmer, and several other cases.
"Technically" NJ issues permits to non-residents, of course we know in reality they issue to almost no one, but residency is not required.
There are a few states like CO that have this weird law that recognizes out of state permits, but the permit holder MUST be a resident of that state. MI also has that law however they recognize ALL state permits. SC would be affected, as there are many states they don't recognize.
Good luck, hopefully this doesn't just tell CA and NY that they can't statutorily deny non-residents, but then if they fail the "need" test they can be denied anyway. But can't they just change their law so non-resident FL and UT permits are accepted in CO?

Last edited by press1280; 06-02-2010 at 4:00 AM.. Reason: question
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-02-2010, 3:48 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,377
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
All,

I'm pleased to announce that today, John Monroe of Georgia Carry fame filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in Peterson v. LaCabe. This is a case brought by our own Gray Peterson (who is a WA resident but spends lots of time here in California helping the fight) challenging Denver and Colorado's lack of carry license reciprocity and lack of an ability to issue carry licenses to out of state residents.

The Calguns Foundation has been providing legal support and, while not directly paying for the costs, is providing assistance raising funds for this challenge. This helps all out of state residents as it will either force issuance of permits to out of state individuals or will widen the scope of Colorado's reciprocity.

Please donate to the Peterson v. Lacabe fund by one of the following means:

Gunpal:


Paypal:


Or send a check or money order to:
Calguns Foundation
3200 Bridge Parkway Suite 202C
Redwood City, CA 94065
Mark on the check "Peterson v. LaCabe"

-Gene
From the complaint it seems the sheriff knew he was in trouble and wouldn't respond to the obvious reason why Gray was denied in the first place.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-02-2010, 8:27 AM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,818
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
From the complaint it seems the sheriff knew he was in trouble and wouldn't respond to the obvious reason why Gray was denied in the first place.
Yep, forcing us to file suit and then finally getting them to admit in their answer, answer #44.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06-02-2010, 8:55 AM
hill billy hill billy is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: San Fernando Valley
Posts: 2,840
iTrader: 167 / 99%
Default

Money sent. Thanks all, for what you do.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-02-2010, 8:58 AM
D-Man's Avatar
D-Man D-Man is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 727
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default Nice job CGF!

That is great news! It has always bothered me how Colorado has handled things. Especially since I have to travel there all the time for work. Will be great to finally be able to carry in a state that touts itself as "gun friendly".
__________________
Darren

http://www.5arrowstactical.com/
Follow us on Twitter here. YouTube channel available here. Like us on Facebook here. and on Instagram here.
NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun Instructor / NRA Personal Protection (Inside & Outside) the Home Instructor / Metallic & Shotgun Reloading / Range Safety Officer
UT / FL / VA / OR / AZ CCW Instructor
Semper Fidelis to all my fellow and former Marines!
Ps 144:1
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-02-2010, 11:01 AM
N6ATF N6ATF is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: East San Diego County, CA
Posts: 8,389
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Ruling ETA?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-02-2010, 11:39 AM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,818
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by N6ATF View Post
Ruling ETA?
They have 21 days to respond, then we'll have 14 days to respond to their response, unless it's a cross-motion for summary judgement/dismissal then we have 21 days, if I recall correctly the FRCP rule. Our planning is the 14 days to respond to their response. Most MSJ's take 60-120 days after end of all filings, however judges are under no particular timetable to respond, though if it takes several months the chief judge might start asking questions.

That being said, we're being told that sometimes they took almost a year depending on the kind of case. We're hoping that with McDonald, and positive rulings in Sykes and Palmer, we might be able to eliminate a large majority of the questions that a judge may have about 2A bearing outside of the home, and the fact that Denver's OC ban in combination with Colorado state statute entirely prohibits all carry in Denver for the residents of 22 states (including California).

Last edited by Gray Peterson; 06-02-2010 at 5:06 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-02-2010, 11:10 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,818
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

All,

Denver is making noises to the point where they're going to make things difficult, all because they fundamentally misunderstand how 42USC1983 cases are litigated. I cannot disclose further without breaching attorney/client privilege, but we're going to have to respond to a bit more paperwork than expected. John is very dedicated, and both myself and a few others have contributed to case.

Any help any of you contribute would be greatly appreciated. Californians who travel through the mountain west are effected, and these kinds of cases will help open up the dam for non-resident license issuance in California, and other states that you may travel in.

To state what I believe that CalGuns Foundation stands for at least when it comes to carry, from their involvement in my work and what they've helped with in other states:

"It is an interest of CalGuns Foundation to have it to where not only residents of California can carry in California, but also non-residents of California while visiting California, and Californians who wish to travel to other states.".

Palmer v. District of Columbia is a great example of this.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06-03-2010, 12:13 AM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,362
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
I cannot disclose further without breaching attorney/client privilege, but we're going to have to respond to a bit more paperwork than expected.
Huh? I thought you were the client. Attorney/client privilege doesn't prevent the client from giving details, only the attorney. I can certainly understand that it may not be a good idea to discuss some issues in a public forum but I don't understand how attorney/client privilege comes into play.
__________________
Coyote Point Armory
341 Beach Road
Burlingame CA 94010
650-315-2210
http://CoyotePointArmory.com
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06-03-2010, 12:28 AM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,818
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
Huh? I thought you were the client. Attorney/client privilege doesn't prevent the client from giving details, only the attorney. I can certainly understand that it may not be a good idea to discuss some issues in a public forum but I don't understand how attorney/client privilege comes into play.
What you said, it's not a good idea to discuss the specific things like really publicly just yet. Just know that it'll generate a bit more work on my attorney's part. You'll especially get a kick when they do respond, and you read their motions. If you're very familiar with 42USC1983 lawsuits of the form filed in Sykes, you would see how ridiculous their likely defenses are. Ridiculous or no, they must be refuted.

Last edited by Gray Peterson; 06-03-2010 at 12:31 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06-03-2010, 12:32 AM
socalblue socalblue is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 812
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
Huh? I thought you were the client. Attorney/client privilege doesn't prevent the client from giving details, only the attorney. I can certainly understand that it may not be a good idea to discuss some issues in a public forum but I don't understand how attorney/client privilege comes into play.
Dan,

If Gray releases certain info as the plaintiff that can in fact result in the at least partial loss of the attorney/client privilege. Best to let the court filings do the talking until the case is over.

The law is often times a wonderfully strange & wacky thing. What one expects a particular thing to mean is not always (or often) the case.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 06-03-2010, 12:52 AM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,818
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by socalblue View Post
Dan,

If Gray releases certain info as the plaintiff that can in fact result in the at least partial loss of the attorney/client privilege. Best to let the court filings do the talking until the case is over.

The law is often times a wonderfully strange & wacky thing. What one expects a particular thing to mean is not always (or often) the case.
Thanks Blue, you pretty much are spot on as to my thoughts on the issue.

Once the filings come out you see and we can discuss them here. Filings I can discuss, other communications I can only push so far. They have 20 more days.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 06-04-2010, 5:37 PM
GearHead GearHead is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: The US of A
Posts: 410
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

As a resident of CO who goes to college in CA, I will throw a few dollars your way when my next paycheck comes in.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 06-04-2010, 9:15 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,818
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Thanks, man. I'm working on getting this a little wider exposure.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 06-04-2010, 9:34 PM
1JimMarch 1JimMarch is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,796
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This could have a lot of California impact. Like CO, Cali is discriminating against out-of-state residents but if anything, it's California that's much more "hardcore" about it.

If Cali has to suddenly issue to out-of-staters, that means they have to revise their CCW rules sooner rather than later. And all sorts of fed-level rules against "arbitrary or capricious" handling of administrative law could kick in. It's barely possible this could force CCW reforms (for everybody, in state or out) faster than even Sykes can go through the courts.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 06-04-2010, 9:45 PM
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,485
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1JimMarch View Post
This could have a lot of California impact. Like CO, Cali is discriminating against out-of-state residents but if anything, it's California that's much more "hardcore" about it.

If Cali has to suddenly issue to out-of-staters, that means they have to revise their CCW rules sooner rather than later. And all sorts of fed-level rules against "arbitrary or capricious" handling of administrative law could kick in. It's barely possible this could force CCW reforms (for everybody, in state or out) faster than even Sykes can go through the courts.


CGF doesn't work in that mysterious of a way...

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn 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
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 06-04-2010, 9:51 PM
dunndeal's Avatar
dunndeal dunndeal is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,345
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

The brilliance of some of the minds I've encountered here continues to amaze me. Carry on gentlemen.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 06-04-2010, 9:58 PM
GrizzlyGuy's Avatar
GrizzlyGuy GrizzlyGuy is offline
Gun Runner to The Stars
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Northern Sierras
Posts: 5,469
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post


CGF doesn't work in that mysterious of a way...
I didn't think so, and that's why I just sent my C-note to the general CGF fund. Sorry Gray, love you man, just gotta support the homeboys first. Trickle-down economics, right?
__________________
Gun law complexity got you down? Get the FAQs, Jack!

Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 06-05-2010, 8:37 AM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,818
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GrizzlyGuy View Post
I didn't think so, and that's why I just sent my C-note to the general CGF fund. Sorry Gray, love you man, just gotta support the homeboys first. Trickle-down economics, right?
It does technically support the homeboys, as it where, for multiple reasons. Our MSJ was helped by the denial to the motion dismissed filed by the defendants of the Peruta v. County of San Diego litigation, which is a carbon copied case from Sykes v. McGinness.

Also, a positive decision would help Palmer v. DC as well. Let's also think about this for a second.

Colorado law specifically requires that a person be a resident of the state, as that is in the statutory language. California's PC12050(a)(1)(D) does not have "residency in the state", as you can see below:

(D) For the purpose of subparagraph (A), the applicant shall satisfy any one of the following:
(i) Is a resident of the county or a city within the county.


So, in order to issue to out of state residents, this entire underlined section would have to be struck down as unconstitutional by a federal judge, and until the Legislature can rewrite the statute to be compliant with the federal judicial order, that provision would be gone. Can you see why that would be important for Californians? Granted there would need to be a follow up California case focused on out of state residents, but re-importation of case law from out of circuit helps, especially considering Colorado all but conceded constitutionality in their statutes.

Anyway, this is just MY opinion, reading my own understanding of the right to travel among other things. CGF as an organization may have a different read on it or a different plan for this situation, so we'll see.

Last edited by Gray Peterson; 06-05-2010 at 9:44 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 06-05-2010, 10:24 AM
GrizzlyGuy's Avatar
GrizzlyGuy GrizzlyGuy is offline
Gun Runner to The Stars
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Northern Sierras
Posts: 5,469
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
So, in order to issue to out of state residents, this entire underlined section would have to be struck down as unconstitutional by a federal judge, and until the Legislature can rewrite the statute to be compliant with the federal judicial order, that provision would be gone. Can you see why that would be important for Californians? Granted there would need to be a follow up California case focused on out of state residents, but re-importation of case law from out of circuit helps, especially considering Colorado all but conceded constitutionality in their statutes.

Anyway, this is just MY opinion, reading my own understanding of the right to travel among other things. CGF as an organization may have a different read on it or a different plan for this situation, so we'll see.
OK Gray, you sold me. I just dropped another C-note via GPal but this time it went into your case's bucket.
__________________
Gun law complexity got you down? Get the FAQs, Jack!

Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 06-06-2010, 11:08 AM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,818
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GrizzlyGuy View Post
OK Gray, you sold me. I just dropped another C-note via GPal but this time it went into your case's bucket.
Thanks, man.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 06-06-2010, 11:37 AM
Maestro Pistolero's Avatar
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,891
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

$$ inbound. This is how a gun rights organization ought to be run. (Well, except for that raffle that didn't get raffled yet ). Love you guys.
__________________
www.christopherjhoffman.com

The Second Amendment is the one right that is so fundamental that the inability to exercise it, should the need arise, would render all other rights null and void. Dead people have no rights.
Magna est veritas et praevalebit

Last edited by Maestro Pistolero; 06-06-2010 at 12:24 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 06-06-2010, 12:26 PM
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,275
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro Pistolero View Post
$$ inbound. This is how a gun rights organization ought to be run. Well, except for that raffle that didn't get raffled yet. Love you guys.
The raffles are not related to a gun rights organization but to offset costs of GeoVario's previously-donated web hosting service.

Quote:
Originally Posted by artherd View Post
GeoVario's "6th Donate to CGN and win Sweepstakes " ("Sweepstakes") begins at 6:00 p.m. Pacific on November 6 1, 2009 and extends through 11:59 p.m. Pacific on April 25, 2010 (the "Sweepstakes Period"). The Sweepstakes is produced and sponsored by GeoVario, 1083 Vine St #215, Healdsburg, CA 95448 USA ("GeoVario").
__________________
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.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 06-06-2010, 1:25 PM
Maestro Pistolero's Avatar
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,891
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
The raffles are not related to a gun rights organization but to offset costs of GeoVario's previously-donated web hosting service.
Of course. Just yanking the chain a bit. The foundation and the site share such a close association and, in fact, share the same name, that it's easy to forget they are separate. Thanks for the reminder.
__________________
www.christopherjhoffman.com

The Second Amendment is the one right that is so fundamental that the inability to exercise it, should the need arise, would render all other rights null and void. Dead people have no rights.
Magna est veritas et praevalebit
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 06-06-2010, 1:59 PM
gunsmith gunsmith is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,957
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I'm flat broke ( still ) whenever I get back on my feet I'm contributing.
Funny enough, if you win, then me and my Glock can go to NYC and I could work for a summer as a motorcycle messenger ( or cab driver ) and I would be able to donate, or if you don't need it after the big win- I would at least buy you dinner.
__________________
NRA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 06-06-2010, 9:40 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,818
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gunsmith View Post
I'm flat broke ( still ) whenever I get back on my feet I'm contributing.
Funny enough, if you win, then me and my Glock can go to NYC and I could work for a summer as a motorcycle messenger ( or cab driver ) and I would be able to donate, or if you don't need it after the big win- I would at least buy you dinner.
Thanks, gunsmith.

Also, a clarification since people asked: The purpose is to get positive case law to where a civil right may not be denied due to residency. There are quite a few states that do this crap, and a positive win even in district court pays off dividends for folks in California who travel to other states, or people who want to visit California and be protected.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 06-07-2010, 8:32 AM
Glock22Fan's Avatar
Glock22Fan Glock22Fan is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 5,752
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
Thanks, gunsmith.

Also, a clarification since people asked: The purpose is to get positive case law to where a civil right may not be denied due to residency. There are quite a few states that do this crap, and a positive win even in district court pays off dividends for folks in California who travel to other states, or people who want to visit California and be protected.
Maybe I didn't read this carefully enough, but I think that your winning means that Denver will have to issue to non-residents (does that CHL apply to the whole of Colorado?).

Slightly confused about whether that will, as a side effect maybe, cause Colorado to recognize non-resident permits from other states (such as my Utah or Nevada CCW's) from which they recognize resident permits. Hope so, because I visit Colorado, but don't really want to collect yet another CCW (except for Cali of course).

I grumbled to the Gov'ner when that came into law - it was way overkill as all they needed was a law not recognising non-resident permits held by Colorado residents.
__________________
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.

Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 06-07-2010, 9:46 AM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,818
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock22Fan View Post
Maybe I didn't read this carefully enough, but I think that your winning means that Denver will have to issue to non-residents (does that CHL apply to the whole of Colorado?).

Slightly confused about whether that will, as a side effect maybe, cause Colorado to recognize non-resident permits from other states (such as my Utah or Nevada CCW's) from which they recognize resident permits. Hope so, because I visit Colorado, but don't really want to collect yet another CCW (except for Cali of course).

I grumbled to the Gov'ner when that came into law - it was way overkill as all they needed was a law not recognising non-resident permits held by Colorado residents.
I'll answer your questions.

1) Colorado's licenses are valid statewide, and issued by the Sheriffs. There is no statewide standard license, though there is a statewide app (via the County Sheriffs of Colorado).

2) The license issuance is one part of the case, the recognition of non-resident licenses is another. I do believe, however, that a positive court decision forcing the issuance of CO non-resident licenses will put the Legislature on the spot and they will change the law to re-recognize out of state non-resident licenses.

3) Again, positive case law will help nationwide.

Last edited by Gray Peterson; 06-07-2010 at 10:06 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 06-07-2010, 12:32 PM
Glock22Fan's Avatar
Glock22Fan Glock22Fan is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 5,752
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Thanks, Gray, and good luck. Wish funds permitted a donation but circumstances preclude that. Sorry, but my thoughts are with you.
__________________
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.

Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 06-08-2010, 11:49 AM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,818
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The case is likely to be re-captioned for a new defendant as Alvin LaCabe is retiring this month. The new defendant will be Ronald Perea, who was appointed by the Denver mayor as the new Manager of Safety and the case will likely be called Peterson v. Perea in the near future.

Last edited by Gray Peterson; 06-08-2010 at 11:57 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 06-08-2010, 12:20 PM
N6ATF N6ATF is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: East San Diego County, CA
Posts: 8,389
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Will Perea automatically get a delay to decide whether to moot the suit, or will he just have to change policies ASAP and then file for dismissal?
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 06-08-2010, 12:43 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,818
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by N6ATF View Post
Will Perea automatically get a delay to decide whether to moot the suit, or will he just have to change policies ASAP and then file for dismissal?
As this is an official capacity suit, the answer to that would be no as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states 21 days to respond. Changes of persons in official capacity in 42USC1983 doesn't effect timelines as it's presumed that the person in official capacity has the same knowledge as the old person in official capacity. Since they already have an attorney on the other side, the attorney must do the work on the client's behalf, even if the client ended up in the hospital and so on, for an example.

As for changing policies, there are some complicating Colorado political issues that would likely make that impossible.

Last edited by Gray Peterson; 06-08-2010 at 12:46 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 06-09-2010, 8:43 PM
chiselchst's Avatar
chiselchst chiselchst is offline
Very Nice Honey Badger
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Co Co County
Posts: 2,031
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

Quote:
...and these kinds of cases will help open up the dam for non-resident license issuance in California, and other states that you may travel in...
Tear that Dam down!

I kicked in a couple of peso's.

Thanks for fighting the fight...
__________________
My Opinion - Worth What You Paid For It...

DO NOT Use Amazon Smile! Use Shop42A.com
Quote:
Originally Posted by FremontJames View Post
I guess it depends on what your definition of law breaking is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Here, let me Google that for you ... :)

No, no, that would be cruel.

Last edited by chiselchst; 06-09-2010 at 8:48 PM..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 8:13 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.