David Kopel files Amicus -- Peruta vs. San Diego

[N6ATF]

Come on... this is CA, they'll practically beg LE to harass the hell out of all LOCers just like Wisconsin and the disorderly conduct false arrests.

[Munk]

Come on... this is CA, they'll practically beg LE to harass the hell out of all LOCers just like Wisconsin and the disorderly conduct false arrests.

and with the CGF around we'll all have a nice juicy class-action to levy against a number of law enforcement organziations when these disorderly conduct cases become more rampant.

I know i'd have no problem getting myself a disordly conduct charge for sitting down to enjoy a coffee and reading a book.

[J.D.Allen]

and with the CGF around we'll all have a nice juicy class-action to levy against a number of law enforcement organziations when these disorderly conduct cases become more rampant.

I know i'd have no problem getting myself a disordly conduct charge for sitting down to enjoy a coffee and reading a book.

Me either. I've had more than one cup of coffee with a perfectly FUNCTIONAL firearm on my hip...let's get to it.

[Crom]

Because the "U" in UOC means UNloaded, it simply cannot meet any kind of standard for "and bear." But, the Liberals in Sac'to might legalize LOC. Part of the reason I think this is that I am cursed with having a brother who is a complete kneejerk Liberal. He never comes up with arguments on his own. He simply regurgitates whatever the party line is. This makes him useful because he's a 'barometer' for telling me what the Liberals are are up to, or about to be up to.

Recently, he came up with something new. Now his claim is that allowing people to carry "secretly" (note, not concealed) is stupid & dangerous, but that carrying openly is the proper way to go (because the "danger" can now be seen). He also argues that a permit should be required, because we can't allow just anybody to carry (of course!), but LOC seems to be what the Liberals will be pushing next.

This leaves me somewhat conflicted. I think everybody here knows what a fanatic I am for LOC. That I firmly & absolutely believe that LOC is THE Minimum Constitutional Standard. OTOH, being on the same side of any part of the issue as the Liberals does give me pause.

Not seeing a completely clear path on this, I will merely present the facts & let wiser heads figure out the implications.


The Raisuli

LOC would be great and I agree that it would be the minimum... However, one of the big problems with LOC is the school zones. How to exercise a fundamental right with the constraints of the unreasonable 1000' GFSZ's?

It seems plain to me that if we did have LOC, we would immediately challenge the GFSZ. CCW is of course exempt from the GFSZ's and that is why I think CCW is so much more valuable to the average citizen.

In Peruta I have high hopes for a ruling in which the court finds "good cause" as an infringement on our rights. I look to the motion to dismiss for hope.

Plaintiff’s challenge to the requirements of Section 12050 as applied by Defendants also survives the Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff alleges that he satisfies the “good cause” requirement because he needs to carry a gun for self-defense, seeing as he is sixty years old and travels to high crime areas for his job. (Pl. Opp., at 5-7.) Plaintiff also alleges that he satisfies the “residency” requirement because he resides in San Diego at least four months out of the year, even though he does so in a motor home. (Id. at 8-10.) Taking Plaintiff’s allegations as true, Defendants’ application of Section 12050's requirements appears to infringe upon Plaintiff’s right to “possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”

--January 14, 2010 - Motion to dismiss DENIED by Hon. Irma E. Gonzalez

[Gray Peterson]

Can someone RECAP the Peruta case please?

[Kharn]

I can't wait for Kopel to change a few names and refile this amicus in Woollard. Talk about a beating for the non-issue crowd...

[Gray Peterson]

I think I agree that it's implicit. But soon, these right-to-carry cases will move forward through the courts and we'll have the explicit case law that we need to compel the remaining anti's.

• Maryland (4th Circuit), Woolard v. Sheridan
• Washington D.C. (Federal), Palmer v. District of Columbia
• California (9th Circuit), Sykes v. McGinness & Peruta v. County of San Diego
• New York (2nd Circuit), Kachalsky v. Cacace
• Illinois (7th Circuit), Mishaga v. Monken
• Colorado (10th Circuit), Peterson v. LaCabe

Sorry to be a stickler, but it's Richards v. Prieto rather than Sykes v. McGinness.

[N6ATF]

Can someone RECAP the Peruta case please?

http://ia341314.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.casd.308678/gov.uscourts.casd.308678.docket.html

[Mulay El Raisuli]

LOC would be great and I agree that it would be the minimum... However, one of the big problems with LOC is the school zones. How to exercise a fundamental right with the constraints of the unreasonable 1000' GFSZ's?

It seems plain to me that if we did have LOC, we would immediately challenge the GFSZ. CCW is of course exempt from the GFSZ's and that is why I think CCW is so much more valuable to the average citizen.

The effort from the Liberals seems to be LOC with a license. That being the case, my guess is that they'll keep the GFSZ (for the children!) but that the license will give immunity just as is the case now with CCW.

As for how LEAs will handle the sight of Open Carriers, I suspect that the harassment factor won't be all that bad. The last couple of years of UOC have smoothed the path at least a little bit.


The Raisuli

[N6ATF]

At least with UOC there's no infringement permit they can demand to see... only the loaded check is authorized by law, everything else are elements of a false arrest (euphemistically referred to as a detention).

[NightOwl]

I'm not sure that OC with a license would stand up, considering the number of states that don't require a license. Would be a hard sell that it serves a narrowly tailored governmental interest...that many states don't require a license for already.

[Mulay El Raisuli]

I'm not sure that OC with a license would stand up, considering the number of states that don't require a license. Would be a hard sell that it serves a narrowly tailored governmental interest...that many states don't require a license for already.

I agree. That doesn't mean that those people won't try for it anyway.


The Raisuli

[Purple K]

Only 7-days to go.....

[voiceofreason]

...

[voiceofreason]

LOC beats UOC any day.

However, many people do not want to OC, loaded or not. Assuming that LOC is acceptable in school zones like CA CCWs, many parents do not want to deal with the issues that will inevitably erupt from the other parents that will likely discriminate against people that wish to carry firearms.

Carrying concealed takes care of that issue nicely. LOC is necessary even if CCW is shall issue, if only for those occasions when a concealing garment isn't doing what it's supposed to do. And many people prefer LOC as their method of carry.