Peruta v. County of San Diego (CCW) [Filed for cert to SCOTUS, 1/12/17]

[Drivedabizness]

He was giving an example of what else would be unconstitutional, not implying that Peruta addressed any of those issues.

Silly me...must have been his first sentence saying Peruta supposedly addressed those things

[Drivedabizness]

Emphasis mine.

http://www.dailydemocrat.com/breakingnews/ci_25342529/despite-court-ruling-yolo-county-concealed-weapons-law?IADID=Search-www.dailydemocrat.com-www.dailydemocrat.com

If and when the new policy is finalized, any law-abiding resident with the desire for self-defense would be able to apply for a permit, which Prieto finds "alarming. " He said that his main concern is that people who are involved in criminal activities, who have never been convicted, would be able to carry a concealed weapon."

"It's alarming to me that these individuals are going to be able to carry a concealed weapon," he said. "The significant difference here is that these criminals are going to have a card with my signature saying that they can carry the weapon."

Dear Sheriff Prieto:

People who are involved in criminal activities but have never been convicted are presumed innocent.

Yours sincerely,

The US Constitution

PS - If they do anything illegal with the gun you license them to carry, you have lots you can do to them. But Oh by the way - people with carry licenses are, statistically, much more law-abiding than the general public. Your unfounded "alarm" does not allow you to implement an unconstitutional policy. Sheriff McGuinness used to say much the same until he saw the light.

[Wolverine]

IMO the intent of GC was to let sheriffs and Chiefs of police to decide . If you remember during oral arguments . One of the judges asked about how you are more inherent to need a gun in rural areas maybe to defend against a bear or other wildlife etc. I believe The intent of the good cause part was to allow sheriffs and less populated areas to issue permits while urban areas or well populated areas sheriffs could refuse permits . That's my belief of what the intent of good cause was about and It had nothing to do with political donors cronies and special favors . I'm sure at the time of that legislation there was some debate going on . Does anybody have access to those records ? It should've all been public record by now we should be able to see exactly what the intent was or least how they tried to explain the intent .

Keep in mind that this law was passed in 1923 before even felons were prohibited from possessing firearms. This was also before any statewide criminal records so local law enforcement was the only person with any information about whether the applicant was an upstanding citizen or some low life gang banger. With this in mind, supported by newspaper articles at the time, the intent of the legislature was to 1) Prohibit bad guys from carrying and 2) let the good guys carry as they did before.

Now that we've had 90 years of additional laws fine tuning who should not be allowed to possess firearms (let alone carry) the original legislative intent behind the local LE discretion in issuing carry permits has been superseded. That doesn't make the CC/GMC law unconstitutional on it face. The Constitution is OK with redundancy. The problem comes up when local LE abuse their discretion.

[rplaw]

Silly me...must have been his first sentence saying Peruta supposedly addressed those things

No. My first sentence was that Peruta was decided in order to resolve a specific issue as identified by the quote.

My second sentence said that the resolution was based on a simple understanding of what is allowable.

My third and sequential sentences were examples of what would violate that premis.

Nowhere in my post did I say that Peruta incorporated any of the aforementioned examples. Thus, either your comprehension was flawed or my thoughts were vague rather than illuminating. If the latter, I apologize.

[wazdat]

Keep in mind that this law was passed in 1923 before even felons were prohibited from possessing firearms. This was also before any statewide criminal records so local law enforcement was the only person with any information about whether the applicant was an upstanding citizen or some low life gang banger. With this in mind, supported by newspaper articles at the time, the intent of the legislature was to 1) Prohibit bad guys from carrying and 2) let the good guys carry as they did before.

Now that we've had 90 years of additional laws fine tuning who should not be allowed to possess firearms (let alone carry) the original legislative intent behind the local LE discretion in issuing carry permits has been superseded. That doesn't make the CC/GMC law unconstitutional on it face. The Constitution is OK with redundancy. The problem comes up when local LE abuse their discretion.

IMO the intent of GC was to let sheriffs and Chiefs of police to decide . If you remember during oral arguments . One of the judges asked about how you are more inherent to need a gun in rural areas maybe to defend against a bear or other wildlife etc. I believe The intent of the good cause part was to allow sheriffs and less populated areas to issue permits while urban areas or well populated areas sheriffs could refuse permits . That's my belief of what the intent of good cause was about and It had nothing to do with political donors cronies and special favors . I'm sure at the time of that legislation there was some debate going on . Does anybody have access to those records ? It should've all been public record by now we should be able to see exactly what the intent was or least how they tried to explain the intent .

Like most gun control regulations, in 1923, this was about race.

http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/AB263-Hawes-1923.pdf

Possible unconstitutionality of the provision against possession of weapons by non-naturalized residents was admitted in McKissick's letter to the Governor urging signing of the bill, but he pointed out that if this clause should be held invalid the rest of the act will not be affected and that if it can be sustained that it will have a "salutary effect in checking tong wars among the Chinese and vendettas among our people who are of Latin descent."

While the verbiage of the law might be race neutral, the application certainly wasn't.

[bruss01]

All the briefs are HERE

Please share.

[CCWFacts]

All the briefs are HERE

IANAL but I always enjoy reading anything Gura files.

He makes a solid argument as to why Peruta must end. It is not an appropriate vehicle to go to SCOTUS because even after the en banc, it will have fatal issues of standing, and SCOTUS should not take a case only to dispose of it on standing issues.

Obviously Gura wants Richards to be the vehicle that gets to SCOTUS.

[FlyNShoot]

Sent a C note to NRA-ILA. Win this one!

[Metal God]

Thanks Wazdat : I'm still reading the 93 pages but pretty interesting so far . It's interesting that almost 100 years ago the same debate was going on as far as keeping bad guys from getting guns . Even then and like now the anti's seem to think just passing another law will keep the bad guys from breaking the laws they are already breaking

At what point are the anti's going to realize that laws are NOT there to prevent anybody from committing a crime ? Laws are only there so the state can legally punish you for breaking them .

[rlc2]

thanks, brus for reminder...the FPC, Pimk Panthers, Liberal Gun Owners...

All the briefs are HERE

amici filing was a great point, and direct slam on Harris standing, making he clear reminder that she filed not to be included in sheriff discretion business, in past, and is hypocritical or worse arguing wrongly, deliberately, that she should intervene now.

I realize amici have limited legal impact, but its refreshing to see the 2A movement working together, amongst the many diverse POTG who have argued for their rights for a long time.

And that puts the progressives and race baiting, social justice claiming faux victim charging coalition of mendacious propagandists that enable them, on notice,

that even their supposed clients and slaves have left the liberal plantation, and Harris, and her mentors, funders, and admirers, are out there, naked...

The Imperial Apparatchiki have no clothes...no more than the Emperor and Community Organizer in Chief.

[RobertMW]

I realize amici have limited legal impact, but its refreshing to see the 2A movement working together, amongst the many diverse POTG who have argued for their rights for a long time.

I think we would all love to say that is 100% true, but even Gura's brief shows that isn't so. There is a lot of bickering between the different groups on how exactly things should be done.

[soul]

Humble request to the experts here, was trying to follow the flow chart on http://michellawyers.com/guncasetrac...rutavsandiego/

Where do we stand in terms of best and worst timeline of events? Can someone put it together?

[Edgy01]

And so the saga continues...

[Bhart356]

Humble request to the experts here, was trying to follow the flow chart on http://michellawyers.com/guncasetrac...rutavsandiego/



Where do we stand in terms of best and worst timeline of events? Can someone put it together?

My understanding based on the flowchart:

Simultaneous briefings of counsels and amicus curiea were filed on December 24. We are currently in a three week period in which the Circuit Judges exchange memoranda on the case, presumably to influence other judges regarding to take the case en banc or not. After the three week period ends (mid-January) there is a call for a vote, which occurs over the next two weeks (end of January). At least 14 affirmative votes are required for the case to be reconsidered en banc. Failure to vote is a "silent no".

So we have another month of debate and speculation while the Ninth Circuit does its thing. By then everyone should also be debating and speculating the outcome of the Super Bowl. Exciting times.

[wazdat]

My understanding based on the flowchart:

Simultaneous briefings of counsels and amicus curiea were filed on December 24. We are currently in a three week period in which the Circuit Judges exchange memoranda on the case, presumably to influence other judges regarding to take the case en banc or not. After the three week period ends (mid-January) there is a call for a vote, which occurs over the next two weeks (end of January). At least 14 affirmative votes are required for the case to be reconsidered en banc. Failure to vote is a "silent no".

So we have another month of debate and speculation while the Ninth Circuit does its thing. By then everyone should also be debating and speculating the outcome of the Super Bowl. Exciting times.

And remember, there are two parallel legs to this running on the same timeline. The AG's en banc request to intervene and a sua sponte en banc called by one of the judges of the court. So two sets of memoranda and two votes.