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 06-08-2011, 8:03 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,492
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default 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, 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
  #2  
Old 06-08-2011, 8:10 PM
gunsmith gunsmith is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Northern Nevada
Posts: 1,923
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
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
OK, could you, like, translate what a motion to deny relationship means to us gunnies who A: cant get pdf's on their old worn out pc & B: only a slim grasp of legalese
__________________
NRA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-08-2011, 8:10 PM
Window_Seat's Avatar
Window_Seat Window_Seat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,528
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

I read both briefs. I'm not sure what the issue is, and which one to agree with just yet.

Erik.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-08-2011, 8:11 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Lay mans pleez??? What are the pros and cons? Thanks
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-08-2011, 8:18 PM
gunsmith gunsmith is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Northern Nevada
Posts: 1,923
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

cool, both of the above posters are smarter than I am & they need translation too.
__________________
NRA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-08-2011, 8:25 PM
Window_Seat's Avatar
Window_Seat Window_Seat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,528
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Question

Quote:
But contrary to Richards Appellants’
assertions in their “motion to align,” the cases raise decidedly different issues, take
different approaches, and call for dramatically different judicial relief. Both the
parties and the Court would be better served if the cases were heard separately,
with Peruta heard first.
I like Peruta and what it affects if it's favorable to what I'm concerned with as far as traveling, but I'm not sure if I agree with that part.

Having said what I said above and in the previous post, I need some more lessons too, and still reading...

Erik.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-08-2011, 8:31 PM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,362
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-08-2011, 8:35 PM
tabrisnet tabrisnet is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Detroit, formerly Mountain View CA
Posts: 529
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-08-2011, 8:38 PM
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

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:
Originally Posted by tabrisnet View Post
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.
This is a situation where attorneys MUST advocate for their owns client's behalf, and not necessarily play ball with each other. The Richards attorneys wants to speed up their case, the Peruta case doesn't want to have their case slowed down (or at least they think there is a potential of the case being slowed down). Every day the ability of self defense is denied to these plaintiffs (and all of us, you, me, everyone in California) is every day they can face being maimed or killed by criminals.

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..
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-08-2011, 8:42 PM
Window_Seat's Avatar
Window_Seat Window_Seat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,528
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
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.
Why on Peruta's schedule?

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:
And, Peruta Appellants would prefer not to have their case heard with
Richards – even if the two cases were on precisely the same track and guaranteed
to stay that way. The timing issue and potentially extensive delays in obtaining
relief is a real concern. But it is not the main one. Binding the cases together and
hearing them together will prejudice the Peruta Appellants’ case.
Why would they be concerned that binding the cases together would prejudice their case? I think it would help their case, but that's just me (so far, maybe I'm still dumb at this)...

Erik.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06-08-2011, 8:45 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

So by having a pro and a con will expedite matters easier than two pros or two cons? Or am I way off on the concept here. It wouldn't be the first time!
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-08-2011, 8:46 PM
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 Window_Seat View Post
Why on Peruta's schedule?

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)...



Why would they be concerned that binding the cases together would prejudice their case? I think it would help their case, but that's just me (so far, maybe I'm still dumb at this)...

Erik.
Read my post above. Richards wants to be on Peruta's schedule because it fast-tracks their case to be heard. Peruta's attorneys are concerned they'll be put on Richard's schedule instead, and there's an apparent two month time difference.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-08-2011, 8:53 PM
Window_Seat's Avatar
Window_Seat Window_Seat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,528
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
Read my post above. Richards wants to be on Peruta's schedule because it fast-tracks their case to be heard. Peruta's attorneys are concerned they'll be put on Richard's schedule instead, and there's an apparent two month time difference.
Yup, I was typing just as you hit the submit (I'm a bit slow at typing up my questions, comments, compliments, condiments... )

Erik.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-08-2011, 8:56 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Being the conspiracy theorist that I am I believe this is strategy between the two plaintiffs to make the panel rule and spin heads for the defense.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-08-2011, 10:06 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,492
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

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, 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
  #16  
Old 06-08-2011, 11:02 PM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,362
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

fundraising?
__________________
Coyote Point Armory
341 Beach Road
Burlingame CA 94010
650-315-2210
http://CoyotePointArmory.com
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06-09-2011, 12:36 AM
Funtimes's Avatar
Funtimes Funtimes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 947
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
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

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.
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor.
Sig Certified Handgun / Active Shooter Instructor.

2L Student. Nothing is legal advice, just simply my 2 cents worth of opinions.

Last edited by Funtimes; 06-09-2011 at 12:38 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06-09-2011, 12:39 AM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,419
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Funtimes View Post
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?
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.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 06-09-2011, 1:00 AM
safewaysecurity's Avatar
safewaysecurity safewaysecurity is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Contra Costa County
Posts: 6,181
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by cudakidd View Post
I want Blood for Oil. Heck I want Blood for Oil over hand wringing sentiment!
^
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 06-09-2011, 1:04 AM
navyinrwanda's Avatar
navyinrwanda navyinrwanda is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 585
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

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:
...Prieto cannot reasonably claim that his policy cabins his discretion in any sort of meaningful, constitutionally acceptable way. To the contrary, Prieto’s written policy repeatedly confirms his exclusive and absolute discretion to adjudicate applicants’ moral character and good cause, and even goes so far as to declare that gun carry permits will be issued or renewed only
when “the Sheriff or his designee feels” like it. Worse still, the Sheriff’s written policy provides that “self-protection and protection of family (without credible threats of violence)” are “invalid reasons to request a permit.” This position categorically violates the Second Amendment. As the Supreme Court has made clear, self-defense is at the core of the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
...

The good moral character and good cause provisions of Penal Code § 12050, and Defendants’ manner of implementing these requirements, vest unbridled discretion in the Sheriff’s ability to license exercise of fundamental rights. They must be enjoined. [emphasis added]
The only significant difference between Richards and Peruta is the vastly more comprehensive, well-researched and well-written argument of law that is Richards.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 06-09-2011, 2:31 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 1,782
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 06-09-2011, 6:19 AM
slowride slowride is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 06-09-2011, 6:37 AM
Liberty1's Avatar
Liberty1 Liberty1 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,544
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

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/
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 06-09-2011, 6:37 AM
Edward Peruta Edward Peruta is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 75
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default My thoughts, opinions and comments

On second thought....!

Last edited by Edward Peruta; 06-09-2011 at 7:46 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 06-09-2011, 6:37 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 slowride View Post
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.
Uh, no. The stated purpose of the Richards alignment motion is to speed up the time for the Richards case and to prevent an intracircuit conflict which will require en banc resolution. This has zero to do with "much better argument"
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 06-09-2011, 7:12 AM
Kestryll's Avatar
Kestryll Kestryll is offline
Head Janitor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Occupied Reseda, PRK
Posts: 20,241
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Liberty1 View Post
Welcome and strange 1st post? Are you saying this tongue n cheek or are you serious?
Oh I'm sure he's serious.

What else would you expect from Mr. Birdt?
__________________
NRA Patron Life Member / CRPA Life Member / SAF Life Member
Calguns.net an incorported entity - President.
The Calguns Shooting Sports Assoc. - Vice President.
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 CGF.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 06-09-2011, 8:02 AM
ddestruel ddestruel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 793
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward Peruta View Post
On second thought....!
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
Quote:
....."there can be no irreparable harm to a municipality when it is prevented from enforcing an unconstitutional statute,” and the public interest always weighs in favor of protecting constitutional rights. See Joelner v. Wash. Park, 378 F.3d 613, 620 (7th Cir. 2004).
I VOTE and contribute to organizations who share my pursuit of freedom
1991

Last edited by ddestruel; 06-09-2011 at 12:03 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 06-09-2011, 8:27 AM
sighere's Avatar
sighere sighere is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Oxnard
Posts: 321
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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)
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 06-09-2011, 9:07 AM
Bigtime1's Avatar
Bigtime1 Bigtime1 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: O-side, WEST of the 5.
Posts: 268
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sighere View Post
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 representing 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)
The "good moral character" issue must relegated to the dumpster asap.

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?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 06-09-2011, 9:09 AM
wash's Avatar
wash wash is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sillycon valley
Posts: 9,020
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Blog Entries: 13
Default

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.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by oaklander
Dear Kevin,

You suck!!! Your are wrong!!! Stop it!!!
Proud CGF and CGN donor. SAF life member. Former CRPA member. Gpal beta tester (it didn't work). NRA member.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 06-09-2011, 9:17 AM
tabrisnet tabrisnet is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Detroit, formerly Mountain View CA
Posts: 529
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wash View Post
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.

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
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 06-09-2011, 9:32 AM
Window_Seat's Avatar
Window_Seat Window_Seat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,528
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Exclamation Can this be worked out quickly?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wash View Post
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.
Have to agree here...

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.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 06-09-2011, 9:34 AM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 26,762
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 06-09-2011, 9:59 AM
ccmc ccmc is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,716
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigtime1 View Post
WHO MADE THEM GOD?
California voters.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 06-09-2011, 10:05 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 tabrisnet View Post
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.
It would appear that the Richards camp were in contact with the Peruta camp on the very day that the Richards camp filed the motion to request the merge.

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.

Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 06-09-2011, 10:18 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 Edward Peruta View Post
On second thought....!
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!".

__________________
Gun law complexity got you down? Get the FAQs, Jack!

Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 06-09-2011, 10:46 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 Sighere
I think the Richards folks are trying to make sure the weakness of the Peruta case does not hurt them in the long run.
Maybe it is, in their minds, the other way around.
__________________
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
  #38  
Old 06-09-2011, 10:59 AM
wash's Avatar
wash wash is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sillycon valley
Posts: 9,020
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Blog Entries: 13
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock22Fan View Post
Maybe it is, in their minds, the other way around.
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?
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by oaklander
Dear Kevin,

You suck!!! Your are wrong!!! Stop it!!!
Proud CGF and CGN donor. SAF life member. Former CRPA member. Gpal beta tester (it didn't work). NRA member.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 06-09-2011, 11:04 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 wash View Post
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?
Yes, I'm aware of the timelines. How does that make any difference to what I said?

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.

Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 06-09-2011, 11:11 AM
BigDogatPlay's Avatar
BigDogatPlay BigDogatPlay is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Beautiful progressive Sonoma County
Posts: 7,387
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
Please don't over-read the situation that much....
Attorneys are obligated to do what they think are best for their specific clients' case.
^^^ This ^^^... and they also kind of have to do what their client wants as well.

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:
Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. -- James Madison
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 1:50 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, 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 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.