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 07-28-2010, 8:34 AM
tango-52's Avatar
tango-52 tango-52 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: San Diego County
Posts: 780
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default Peruta v. County of San Diego

Mandatory Settlement Conference -

In Two Weeks!!!

http://ia341315.us.archive.org/2/ite...08678.18.0.pdf

Other details here:
http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/in...y_of_San_Diego
__________________
“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.” - Lazarus Long
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-28-2010, 9:04 AM
loather loather is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: escondido, ca
Posts: 910
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I hope when the county loses, Gore locks himself in his office and starts crying like Alison did when DOJ lost the ability to list new AWs.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-28-2010, 9:09 AM
gun toting monkeyboy's Avatar
gun toting monkeyboy gun toting monkeyboy is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: San Diego (more or less)
Posts: 6,719
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

So what does this mean, for those of us of the non-legal crowd?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by aplinker View Post
It's OK not to post when you have no clue what you're talking about.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-28-2010, 9:10 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

I don't see Peruta and the organizational plaintiffs settling for anything less than total capitulation of the county to their demands.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-28-2010, 9:10 AM
nick nick is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 18,715
iTrader: 162 / 100%
Default

Since the only plaintiff is an individual, issuing him a permit would settle the case, right?
__________________
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson
"Thou shalt not interfere with the Second Amendment rights of "law-abiding" citizens who want AK-47s only to protect hearth and home." - Paul Helmke finally gets it :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJgunguy24 View Post
Some people are so open minded, their brains have fallen out.


Selling a bunch of C&R and other guns here: https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...php?p=23436916
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-28-2010, 9:11 AM
nick nick is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 18,715
iTrader: 162 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
I don't see Peruta and the organizational plaintiffs settling for anything less than total capitulation of the county to their demands.
Am I missing something? Were the organizational plaintiffs added to the complaint? When?
__________________
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson
"Thou shalt not interfere with the Second Amendment rights of "law-abiding" citizens who want AK-47s only to protect hearth and home." - Paul Helmke finally gets it :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJgunguy24 View Post
Some people are so open minded, their brains have fallen out.


Selling a bunch of C&R and other guns here: https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...php?p=23436916
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-28-2010, 9:12 AM
pullnshoot25 pullnshoot25 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Diego, KA area
Posts: 8,073
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default Re: Peruta v. County of San Diego

I think this is going to go all the way...
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-28-2010, 9:19 AM
tango-52's Avatar
tango-52 tango-52 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: San Diego County
Posts: 780
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

I think the Sheriff can agree to the terms, or the judge can issue a summary judgement granting the plaintiffs request. I wonder if the summary judgement would occur at the end of the settlement conference. All in all, things are really looking up for CCWs.
__________________
“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.” - Lazarus Long
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-28-2010, 9:34 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 nick View Post
Am I missing something? Were the organizational plaintiffs added to the complaint? When?
Yes they were. Judge Gonzalez approved the amended complaint the Friday before McDonald.

Remember that if Gore continues this, his CCW related activities are subject to a lot of scrutiny. It is in Gore's best interest to settle, as sheriffs do not get unseated over CCW issues either way (see Orange County Sheriff's Office).
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-28-2010, 9:34 AM
nick nick is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 18,715
iTrader: 162 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pullnshoot25 View Post
I think this is going to go all the way...
He likely is, but isn't the ball in Gore's court, and he can moot the complaint by just issuing the permit? That's why I was asking about organizational plaintiffs.
__________________
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson
"Thou shalt not interfere with the Second Amendment rights of "law-abiding" citizens who want AK-47s only to protect hearth and home." - Paul Helmke finally gets it :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJgunguy24 View Post
Some people are so open minded, their brains have fallen out.


Selling a bunch of C&R and other guns here: https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...php?p=23436916
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-28-2010, 9:36 AM
tiki tiki is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Uranus
Posts: 1,442
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Yeah, I don't think this is going to go anywhere. If they agree to issue a permit to Peruta, what does that do for the rest of the state? The suit goes away, doesn't it?
__________________
"The problem with quotes found on the Internet is you have no way of confirming their authenticity."
-Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-28-2010, 9:38 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 nick View Post
He likely is, but isn't the ball in Gore's court, and he can moot the complaint by just issuing the permit? That's why I was asking about organizational plaintiffs.
The organization plaintiff is the CRPA Foundation.

Again, I don't see anything being settled for anything less than a stipulated federal consent decree and total capitulation by Sheriff Gore and the County.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-28-2010, 9:43 AM
Nick1236's Avatar
Nick1236 Nick1236 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North San Diego
Posts: 3,852
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
This suit seeks to do two things.

1.Seeks to either find "good cause" as unconstitutional or establish "self defense" sufficient for the California's "Good Cause" requirement.

2.County residency requirements must be changed. Full or part time residents should be treated equally.
So if it goes all the way, self defense would be considered "good cause" there by allowing anyone capable of owning a hangun, the right to CCW? Stupid question i know but wanted to confirm. And by "part time" residents does that mean one could travel to a more accepting county and apply for CCW there becuase they would be "part time" residents?
__________________


Quote:
Originally Posted by dirtykoala View Post
dont have a gun, let crack head break your window and super man drop kick you
Quote:
Originally Posted by compulsivegunbuyer View Post
I grab my zipper and ask if he wants to make a little extra cash
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-28-2010, 9:47 AM
N6ATF N6ATF is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: East San Diego County, CA
Posts: 8,389
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

No written confession for Ruby Ridge?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-28-2010, 9:50 AM
gunn's Avatar
gunn gunn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,535
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick1236 View Post
So if it goes all the way, self defense would be considered "good cause" there by allowing anyone capable of owning a hangun, the right to CCW? Stupid question i know but wanted to confirm. And by "part time" residents does that mean one could travel to a more accepting county and apply for CCW there becuase they would be "part time" residents?
I don't think it will work that smoothly. Unless you can claim an address in the issuing county, how can you establish that you are a resident --- full or part time? Now, for example, if you were a UCSD student and had an address in the county 1/2 the time, that would make you a part time resident.

-g
__________________
Play it Forward Thread: Share with your Fellow Calgunners by Giving Something for FREE and Take Something you Need for FREE!
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-28-2010, 9:50 AM
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: 3,535
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by tiki View Post
Yeah, I don't think this is going to go anywhere. If they agree to issue a permit to Peruta, what does that do for the rest of the state? The suit goes away, doesn't it?
^^+1 for this question please^^

Otherwise, if this is true, then we solely depend on Sykes, or Sykes & Palmer?

Erik.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-28-2010, 9:50 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 tiki View Post
Yeah, I don't think this is going to go anywhere. If they agree to issue a permit to Peruta, what does that do for the rest of the state? The suit goes away, doesn't it?
It does, but again CRPA Foundation is there to guard the interest of CRPA's membership who reside in San Diego County. They are now plaintiffs and they have an interest in fixing it for everyone who resides in the county, so merely issuing licenses to the denied individual parties will not fly. Remember that San Diego County is 3.2 million people. If they settle out and they get San Diego to issue for personal protection/self defense, no restrictions, no more bad treatment of part time residents and so on, enforceable via the federal court system, a future sheriff will not really be able to get out from under it later.

A plaintiff cannot continue to pursue a case against a defendant if the defendant admits fault and is willing to sign a case giving everything you possibly want. That eliminates the controversy at hand and it's a waste of the court's resources.

That decision, however, is solely with Sheriff Gore.

Last edited by Gray Peterson; 07-28-2010 at 9:53 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-28-2010, 10:06 AM
nick nick is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 18,715
iTrader: 162 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
The organization plaintiff is the CRPA Foundation.

Again, I don't see anything being settled for anything less than a stipulated federal consent decree and total capitulation by Sheriff Gore and the County.
I didn't know they were added as a plaintiff. That changes everything.
__________________
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson
"Thou shalt not interfere with the Second Amendment rights of "law-abiding" citizens who want AK-47s only to protect hearth and home." - Paul Helmke finally gets it :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJgunguy24 View Post
Some people are so open minded, their brains have fallen out.


Selling a bunch of C&R and other guns here: https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...php?p=23436916
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-28-2010, 10:07 AM
WatchMan WatchMan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 254
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
That decision, however, is solely with Sheriff Gore.
I wonder what he's thinking...
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-28-2010, 10:13 AM
Purple K's Avatar
Purple K Purple K is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN ContributorCGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Solano County
Posts: 3,119
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

How soon will this effect the other 57 Sheriffs?
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 07-28-2010, 10:14 AM
N6ATF N6ATF is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: East San Diego County, CA
Posts: 8,389
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WatchMan View Post
I wonder what he's thinking...
That it's taxpayer's money (practically unlimited resource, which has, and will continue to be, raised without the taxpayers' vote) he has to burn all the way to SCOTUS.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-28-2010, 10:23 AM
BlindRacer's Avatar
BlindRacer BlindRacer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Orange County
Posts: 631
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple K View Post
How soon will this effect the other 57 Sheriffs?
^This
__________________
“See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.” - Colossians 2:8
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-28-2010, 10:32 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 Purple K View Post
How soon will this effect the other 57 Sheriffs?
When, Gore's head, figuratively, is on a pike to show to the other sheriffs.

Btw, just to clarify: I have no special knowledge of Peruta's case. This is just observational behavior of someone who A) Is currently suing for a CHL currently and has knowledge of 42USC 1983 and B) Is supposedly good at reading and analyzing court filings. I have no connection, none, with CRPA Foundation or any of the plaintiffs. These are purely my logical deduction skills.

Last edited by Gray Peterson; 07-28-2010 at 10:35 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-28-2010, 10:33 AM
hill billy hill billy is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Escondido
Posts: 2,910
iTrader: 171 / 99%
Default

Wow. Crossing my fingers for a positive outcome.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-28-2010, 10:35 AM
Crom Crom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,621
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

This will go all the way and it could fix carry for us all. The sheriff had has chance and he blew it.

Gray explained it quite well. CRPA signed on to the case for the good us all.

The amended complaint reads as follows:

Quote:
In this suit, the CRPA FOUNDATION represents the interests of its many citizen and taxpayer members and members of its related association the California Rifle and Pistol Association who reside in San Diego and who wish to obtain CCWs, but who have been denied CCWs for supposed lack of residence, or supposed lack of "good cause," or who have been told by the Sheriff's Office not to bother applying for a CCW becuase of the aforsaid reasons. The CRPA FOUNDATION and the individuals whose interests are represented by the CRPA FOUNDATION are and will be affected by Defendant's failure to issue CCW licenses according to law.
The protected motion will shield discovery from public disclosure but once a trial date is set it's on.

The mandatory settlement conference will not decide the case. This case will most likely go to trial and not be fully settled until March-June of 2011.

If it does go to trial, I am going to go and watch provided that the judge allows it.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-28-2010, 10:41 AM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,108
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
When, Gore's head, figuratively, is on a pike to show to the other sheriffs.

Btw, just to clarify: I have no special knowledge of Peruta's case. This is just observational behavior of someone who A) Is currently suing for a CHL currently and has knowledge of 42USC 1983 and B) Is supposedly good at reading and analyzing court filings. I have no connection, none, with CRPA Foundation or any of the plaintiffs. These are purely my logical deduction skills.
Thank you for all the caveats, but I consider you to be very good at figuring this kind of thing out and I really appreciate your thoughts.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-28-2010, 10:44 AM
WatchMan WatchMan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 254
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crom View Post
If it does go to trial, I am going to go and watch provided that the judge allows it.
If I can spare the time I will likely try and show up as well. Hmmm, I've never been in a court room without a speeding ticket in my hand...
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-28-2010, 10:44 AM
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: 3,535
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Arrow

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crom View Post
.

If it does go to trial, I am going to go and watch provided that the judge allows it.
IANAL or a court expert, but I am aware that you can go and "sit in" as a spectator in a trial as a member of the public.

Erik.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 07-28-2010, 11:06 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 Crom View Post
This will go all the way and it could fix carry for us all. The sheriff had has chance and he blew it.

Gray explained it quite well. CRPA signed on to the case for the good us all.

The amended complaint reads as follows:

The protected motion will shield discovery from public disclosure but once a trial date is set it's on.

The mandatory settlement conference will not decide the case. This case will most likely go to trial and not be fully settled until March-June of 2011.

If it does go to trial, I am going to go and watch provided that the judge allows it.
Well, that's the thing, the sheriff does have a chance to settle out on August 11th. That's why it's a mandatory settlement attendance. I don't see the plaintiffs conceding anything to the defendants, so it'll be up to Gore to choose between continuing to fight and laying off more employees.

Remember, folks, every level of government in California is BROKE. Be prepared for the possibility, however slight, that we'll win on a stipulated consent agreement. Plus to this is that 3 million people are freed from "may-issue" on a pretty immediate basis.

Last edited by Gray Peterson; 07-28-2010 at 11:09 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 07-28-2010, 11:11 AM
tango-52's Avatar
tango-52 tango-52 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: San Diego County
Posts: 780
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
Well, that's the thing, the sheriff does have a chance to settle out on August 11th. That's why it's a mandatory settlement attendance. I don't see the plaintiffs conceding anything to the defendants, so it'll be up to Gore to choose between continuing to fight and laying off more employee.

Remember, folks, every level of government in California is BROKE.
We need to hit them while they're hurting and take back as much as we can before they recover.
__________________
“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.” - Lazarus Long
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 07-28-2010, 11:20 AM
Crom Crom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,621
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pullnshoot25 View Post
I think this is going to go all the way...
The primary reason I know this will go all the way is because of Ed. Ed was wronged by the Sheriffs office. They were given an opportunity to correct themselves and they refused to do so. I really don't think the Sheriff will settle... [Referring to Gray's note about the Mandatory settlement conference.]

An interesting fact about Ed. Back in 2002 or so, Ed bought a pre-cooked chicken at the supermarket. He went home and when he looked at the receipt and it showed a $0.48 charge for sales tax. He thought this was wrong so he looked up the Connecticut statue for sales tax and it clearly showed that tax should not be charged for pre-cooked food that is not consumed on the store premises.

Ed called the supermarket and talked to a store manager and got nowhere, so he contacted the stores corporate HQ and told them their computers were messed up... I think he tried to correct it through the Conn. State agency which is responsible for setting taxes. When he could make no further progress with phone calls Ed hired an attorney and sued the supermarket. It turned into a class action lawsuit involving six-grocery store chains. Ultimately through the suit it recovered a few million dollars in illegal-collected state taxes.

In the end, a state senator, lieutenant governor, and the Conn state Attorneys General got involved to fix it all. It took two years for it conclude.

That is Ed. If it's illegal or unconstitutional and it affects him in some way he'll fight it. Go Ed!

Here is a video I found which shows a press conference about the ill-collected taxes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WatchMan View Post
If I can spare the time I will likely try and show up as well. Hmmm, I've never been in a court room without a speeding ticket in my hand...
It would be my privilege to watch. I hope you can make it too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Window_Seat View Post
IANAL or a court expert, but I am aware that you can go and "sit in" as a spectator in a trial as a member of the public.

Erik.
Yup. That's the plan. I can't wait.

In the end, I don't care how carry gets fixed in California, only that it does get fixed.
__________________


Last edited by Crom; 07-28-2010 at 11:34 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 07-28-2010, 11:22 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 tango-52 View Post
We need to hit them while they're hurting and take back as much as we can before they recover.
As you well know, I love figuratively kicking anti-self defense sheriffs while they're down....

Again, figuratively speaking.

Last edited by Gray Peterson; 07-28-2010 at 11:26 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 07-28-2010, 11:29 AM
Crom Crom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,621
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tango-52 View Post
We need to hit them while they're hurting and take back as much as we can before they recover.
In my opinion Gore does not care how much the court case will cost the County. Did you know that Gore just received a $10,400 year pay raise?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
I love figuratively kicking anti-self defense sheriffs while they're down on the ground....

Again, figuratively speaking.
I feel the same way. Anything to pull down, or replace an anti-self defense public official is probably a good thing.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 07-28-2010, 11:42 AM
7x57's Avatar
7x57 7x57 is offline
Calguns Addict
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Pasadena
Posts: 5,161
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crom View Post
Gray explained it quite well. CRPA signed on to the case for the good us all.
Now is a good time to say "yay, new CRPA!"

7x57
__________________


What do you need guns for if you are going to send your children, seven hours a day, 180 days a year to government schools? What do you need the guns for at that point?-- R. C. Sproul, Jr. (unconfirmed)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bulgron View Post
I know every chance I get I'm going to accuse 7x57 of being a shill for LCAV. Because I can.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 07-28-2010, 11:45 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 Crom View Post
The primary reason I know this will go all the way is because of Ed. Ed was wronged by the Sheriffs office. They were given an opportunity to correct themselves and they refused to do so. I really don't think the Sheriff will settle... [Referring to Gray's note about the Mandatory settlement conference.]
We won't know really for 100% certainty until after the conference. I'm merely preparing people for the possibility that this won't be the case to "fix it all" for California, but us gunnies would be able to free 3 million people from the clutches of may-issue.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 07-28-2010, 11:47 AM
J.D.Allen J.D.Allen is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,342
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
Well, that's the thing, the sheriff does have a chance to settle out on August 11th. That's why it's a mandatory settlement attendance. I don't see the plaintiffs conceding anything to the defendants, so it'll be up to Gore to choose between continuing to fight and laying off more employees.

Remember, folks, every level of government in California is BROKE. Be prepared for the possibility, however slight, that we'll win on a stipulated consent agreement. Plus to this is that 3 million people are freed from "may-issue" on a pretty immediate basis.
So, if this happens, is it only going to affect SD county, or will it then be effective statewide? Seems illogicsl that they could have one county under a federal shall issue requirement and not the rest of the state...
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 07-28-2010, 11:48 AM
bladerunner747 bladerunner747 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 86
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Yeah, it's called momentum, and we have it!
Let the steam roller keep moving forward and flatten the opposition. I hope this will clear the field and set an example for the rest.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 07-28-2010, 11:50 AM
1JimMarch 1JimMarch is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,796
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Amen: do not underestimate Ed. He's the real deal.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 07-28-2010, 12:01 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 J.D.Allen View Post
So, if this happens, is it only going to affect SD county, or will it then be effective statewide? Seems illogicsl that they could have one county under a federal shall issue requirement and not the rest of the state...
That's a function of the current situation. No way around that. Just be glad it isn't DOJ issuing licenses at this time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1JimMarch View Post
Amen: do not underestimate Ed. He's the real deal.
Yeah, he won't back down unless they give him everything he wants and then some, and fix it forever more.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 07-28-2010, 12:02 PM
Crom Crom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,621
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
We won't know really for 100% certainty until after the conference. I'm merely preparing people for the possibility that this won't be the case to "fix it all" for California, but us gunnies would be able to free 3 million people from the clutches of may-issue.
Thanks Gray. I didn't know that it could be settled in the conference. I reread the amended complaint and now I see what you're speaking to. One of the "prayers for relief" in the amended complaint is to establish "self defense" as "good cause". But when I read it, it is directing the defendant [Gore] to do something, not necessarily the State or other Sheriffs. I think I understand now.

It's paragraph 138 (Sixth Claim for relief) of the amended complaint it reads as follows:
Quote:
Plaintiffs desire a Decree from this Court directing Defendants to consider self-defense to be "good cause" for an otherwise qualified applicant to be issued a CCW.
This would affect the entire county immediately but not necessarily the whole State. But perhaps the eventually settled case law after it is appealed could be used against other Sheriffs too.
__________________

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 4:08 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.