Brady Center has taken an interest in the Peruta v. County of S.D. case

[RKV]

Maybe immune under state law, but fortunately there is

TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

IF you can find a jury to convict, that is.

[hoffmang]

1. Peruta and Sykes seek injunctive relief from future behavior - as such qualified immunity doesn't matter - neither case seeks money damages from the counties.

2. One case forgotten above is Batemen v. Perdue which is SAF/Gura suing NC over it's emergency powers regulations. The section entitled "III. THE SECOND AMENDMENT SECURES A RIGHT TO CARRY ARMS IN PUBLIC." starts on page 10/17 of the reply to the motion to dismiss and unintentionally refutes the Brady Amicus quite well.

-Gene

[dawgcasa]

It's amazing how the Brady Center lawyers contort every sentence they can pull out of case law and present it totally out of context to promote an gun phobic agenda. Nowhere does the 2nd amendment state any qualification or boundaries on the right to 'bear'. The only reason Heller and MacDonald were responded as they did to bearing a gun "in the home" was because of the limited scope of the legal question presented to the court, which they addressed in like kind. These decisions were not explicit or even implicit in characterizating of bearing a gun in the home as a limitation on the fundamental right. They said public carry could be subject to reasonable regulation, e.g., sensitive locations, persons not allowed to own guns in the first place, etc. The Brady bunch then twist that into meaning the home is the only place the right to bear applies.

It's truly amazing what facts, logic, and precedence can be totally ignored or prejudiced by people with irrational agendas.

[Southwest Chuck]

People who have never carried don't have any clue about the quieting influence of having deadly force available on the law-abiding citizen. Perhaps the criminal goes off or the mentally defective, but otherwise ordinary folks do not do so........

jim

I carried concealed this summer for the first time while on vacation in Arizona. I had a hard time grasping my feelings on doing it at the time. I was very aware of my surroundings at all times, but not obsessively so. On reflection, your statement above really hit home with me. It gave me a sense of quiet empowerment. In my case, it could almost be described as calming. That I could, for the first time actually defend myself and my family if it came down to it. We went to many crowded tourist spots and the thought of a Fort Hood shooting type incident happening in such places was chilling.

I usually LUCC, UOC, and LOC (where legal) while camping and traveling in CA since I've yet to acquire a CCW. I envy the residents of the Constitutional Carry States like Arizona. I am humbled at the efforts of so many Patriots on this forum, CGN, CGF, CRPA, NRA, CRPF, etc. etc. I am lucky to be living in an era of a new awakening of the American Spirit; One that embraces it's Constitutional History, and it's Founding Fathers vision, especially in an age of such uncertainty that we are now in.

Sorry, starting to sound corny now. People don't talk like that any more Carry on...

..

[gazzavc]

from gun grabber named Franklin Zimring professor of law at Berkley Law School who states that concealed handguns are dangerous and should be restricted.

And right there sums up everything rotten to the core about our education system.

A professor of law no less. Shouldn't they be called a professor of opinions ??
Who the bloody hell does he think he is to brainwash law students. Its disgusting that a learned man could be so bloody stupid.

[ZombieTactics]

I carried concealed this summer for the first time while on vacation in Arizona. ... It gave me a sense of quiet empowerment. In my case, it could almost be described as calming ...

I concur. When carrying, I am actually a MUCH nicer, calmer person altogether.

[Glock22Fan]

I concur. When carrying, I am actually a MUCH nicer, calmer person altogether.

"An armed society is a polite society" - Robert Heinlein.

And not just because you are scared of retaliation.

[sighere]

I'm with Grizzly Guy. While it's rather maddening to read the amicus brief, their push is relentless even while ignoring the facts, and twisting them around. Heller in fact goes into a pretty detailed discussion of what "bear" means, and concludes that it means to carry upon one's person. The court did not rule on CC in public in Heller, because it was not at issue. (they like narrow decisions). It's clear that your rights do not end at your doorstep, so the whole Brady argument, while seemingly reasonable on its face, is a farce when viewed in this light.

They are definitely pushing for the lowest level of scrutiny. My personal opinion is that any learned judge would quickly dispense with the "reasonableness" doctrine. Lets see... a regulation is constitutional if it's reasonable....That just does not fly when you're talking fundamental incorporated rights. I seriously doubt that the strict scrutiny standard will be applied either. Possession of deadly force in public, while IMHO is your right, it deserves some kind of special treatment. I guess we'll stay tuned to see what the courts divine...

[sighere]

I wish they'd televise the Peruta hearing, I'd love to be a fly on the wall for that one!

[Gray Peterson]

I'm sure a transcript will be made available at some point.

[CaliforniaLiberal]

I carried concealed this summer for the first time while on vacation in Arizona. I had a hard time grasping my feelings on doing it at the time. I was very aware of my surroundings at all times, but not obsessively so. On reflection, your statement above really hit home with me. It gave me a sense of quiet empowerment. In my case, it could almost be described as calming. That I could, for the first time actually defend myself and my family if it came down to it. We went to many crowded tourist spots and the thought of a Fort Hood shooting type incident happening in such places was chilling.

I usually LUCC, UOC, and LOC (where legal) while camping and traveling in CA since I've yet to acquire a CCW. I envy the residents of the Constitutional Carry States like Arizona. I am humbled at the efforts of so many Patriots on this forum, CGN, CGF, CRPA, NRA, CRPF, etc. etc. I am lucky to be living in an era of a new awakening of the American Spirit; One that embraces it's Constitutional History, and it's Founding Fathers vision, especially in an age of such uncertainty that we are now in.

Sorry, starting to sound corny now. People don't talk like that any more Carry on...

..

This is NOT corny. You speak truly from the heart and you need not apologize.

This is a precise and correct description of where we are today and you, nor anyone else should feel abashed about proclaiming it.

CalGuns and many other gatherings of citizens who care, with the same sentiments are growing all over the country, gathering legal, financial and political power to rain down from the mountain tops. The Anti 2nd Amendment forces are dismayed and faltering.

We live in interesting times.

Let your flag fly Chuck!

[craneman]

And right there sums up everything rotten to the core about our education system.

A professor of law no less. Shouldn't they be called a professor of opinions ??
Who the bloody hell does he think he is to brainwash law students. Its disgusting that a learned man could be so bloody stupid.

Man, I am with you on that one!! That is the $100,000 question right there. Too many judges have ruled on opinion, not fact. There is NO room for opinion when it comes to your constitutional rights. I have not a clue why this has been allowed in the past, unfortunately I am fairly sure it will continue far into the future. Shamefull.......

[Southwest Chuck]

This is NOT corny. You speak truly from the heart and you need not apologize.

This is a precise and correct description of where we are today and you, nor anyone else should feel abashed about proclaiming it.

CalGuns and many other gatherings of citizens who care, with the same sentiments are growing all over the country, gathering legal, financial and political power to rain down from the mountain tops. The Anti 2nd Amendment forces are dismayed and faltering.

We live in interesting times.

Let your flag fly Chuck!

Flying High it is (see sig below). Thanks for the affirmation

[CaliforniaLiberal]

^^^^^