Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Peruta v. San Diego: ILEETA Files Amicus Brief in Ninth Circuit CCW Case

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • sbrady@Michel&Associates
    Senior Member
    • Nov 2009
    • 718

    Peruta v. San Diego: ILEETA Files Amicus Brief in Ninth Circuit CCW Case

    Peruta v. County of San Diego.

    On May 30, 2011, the prestigious International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association (ILEETA) and the Independence Institute joined in the Peruta appeal, filing a friend-of-the-court amicus curiae brief in support of neither party.See the videos herePerutaSee opening appellate brief here).

    The ILEETA brief is the latest in a series of amicus briefs that have been filed in the case so far. On May 27, 2011, the National Rifle Association weighed in with an amicus brief authored by former Solicitor General and renowned constitutional litigator Paul Clement. The NRA's brief reiterates the position NRA took in a previous amicus brief filed with the Ninth Circuit in the Nordyke v. King case, that infringements on the right to bear arms, must be reviewed under a strict scrutiny standard. The brief continues though, arguing that even if the "substantial burden" test, ultimately adopted by the Ninth Circuit in the Nordyke case is the proper test for reviewing Second Amendment infringements, San Diego County's CCW issuance policy still fails. ().

    On May 25, 2011, the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) filed an amicus).

    More amicus briefs are expected to be filed soon. To be kept up to date on these filings, subscribe to our alerts at http://michellawyers.com/subscribe.

    The plaintiffs in the Peruta http://michellawyers.com/perutavsandiego.

    The lawsuit and appeal are being funded by the NRA-CRPA Foundation Legal Action Project (LAP). To fight for the self-defense civil rights of all Californians, the NRA and CRPA Foundation have joined forces. Through LAP, NRA/CRPAF attorneys fight ill-conceived gun control laws and ordinances, educate state and local officials about available programs that are effective in reducing accidents and violence without infringing on the rights of law-abiding gun owners, and produce valid science about game and wildlife resource management.

    To contribute to the NRA/CRPAF Legal Action Project (LAP) and support this and similar efforts and Second Amendment litigation in California, visit www.crpafoundation.org and www.nraila.org.
    sigpic
    SBrady@michellawyers.com
    www.michellawyers.com
    www.calgunlaws.com
    Subscribe to Receive News Bulletins

  • #2
    bwiese
    I need a LIFE!!
    • Oct 2005
    • 27621

    And there are those that say NRA/CRPA etc never does anything in CA.

    Baloney.

    Bill Wiese
    San Jose, CA

    CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member
    sigpic
    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.

    Comment

    • #3
      Untamed1972
      I need a LIFE!!
      • Mar 2009
      • 17579

      nice to see someone with some sort of LE connection weighing in on this even if it's just to debunk the "UOC is sufficient" myth.
      "Freedom begins with an act of defiance"

      Quote for the day:
      "..the mind is the weapon and the hand only its extention. Discipline your mind!" Master Hao, Chenrezi monastery, Valley of the Sun

      Comment

      • #4
        OleCuss
        Calguns Addict
        • Jun 2009
        • 7966

        You know? I always enjoy it when Sean posts! I almost always learn something worthwhile. . .
        CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Don't consider anything I post as advice or as anything more than opinion (if even that).

        Comment

        • #5
          bwiese
          I need a LIFE!!
          • Oct 2005
          • 27621

          Originally posted by OleCuss
          You know? I always enjoy it when Sean posts! I almost always learn something worthwhile. . .
          Yeah, Chuck's got a great team.

          I do really wish we could plagiarize the Charles Schwab ad, "Talk to Chuck" - for a marketing campaign for them

          Bill Wiese
          San Jose, CA

          CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member
          sigpic
          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.

          Comment

          • #6
            ddestruel
            Senior Member
            • Nov 2009
            • 887

            Originally posted by bwiese
            And there are those that say NRA/CRPA etc never does anything in CA.

            Baloney.


            NRA never does anything in CA




            sorry i had to say it.

            The way these amicus briiefs and this friend-of-the-court amicus curiae brief are stacking up it should be interesting to see how the 9th intends to thread this needle
            NRA Life member, multi organization continued donor etc etc etc

            Comment

            • #7
              nick
              CGN/CGSSA Contributor
              CGN Contributor
              • Aug 2008
              • 19143

              Originally posted by bwiese
              And there are those that say NRA/CRPA etc never does anything in CA.

              Baloney.
              Well, what have they done for me recently? Oh wait...
              DiaHero Foundation - helping people manage diabetes. Sending diabetes supplies to Ukraine now, any help is appreciated.

              DDR AK furniture and Norinco M14 parts kit: https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1756292
              sigpic

              Comment

              • #8
                BRoss
                Junior Member
                • Aug 2010
                • 73

                Originally posted by bwiese
                Yeah, Chuck's got a great team.
                I concur.

                Comment

                • #9
                  hoffmang
                  I need a LIFE!!
                  • Apr 2006
                  • 18448

                  Sean,

                  Why is the brief in support of neither party?

                  -Gene
                  Gene Hoffman
                  Chairman, California Gun Rights Foundation

                  DONATE NOW
                  to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @cgfgunrights 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

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    curtisfong
                    Calguns Addict
                    • Jan 2009
                    • 6893

                    Originally posted by hoffmang
                    Sean,

                    Why is the brief in support of neither party?
                    Anti judicial-activist camouflage?
                    The Rifle on the WallKamala Harris

                    Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      sbrady@Michel&Associates
                      Senior Member
                      • Nov 2009
                      • 718

                      Originally posted by hoffmang
                      Sean,

                      Why is the brief in support of neither party?

                      -Gene
                      Gene, you would have to ask ILEETA, but I imagine it is because they are not taking a stance on whether San Diego's policy is constitutional or not, only that, as a matter of fact, there are issues with accepting UOC as a sufficient form of self-defense. In other words, they are not making legal judgments, just factual ones.
                      sigpic
                      SBrady@michellawyers.com
                      www.michellawyers.com
                      www.calgunlaws.com
                      Subscribe to Receive News Bulletins

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        SoCal Bob
                        Calguns Addict
                        • May 2010
                        • 5324

                        It would be amusing to do a freedom of information act on Sheriff Gore to see how many accidental discharges and negligent discharges the Sheriff's Department has had since they transitioned from revolvers to Glocks, Calm Down!, nothing against Glocks, just a training issue. Since the County's attorney successfully argued that UOC is perfectly acceptable for self defense purposes then why doesn't the Sheriff's Dept UOC to eliminate AD's & ND's.

                        I for one, would be fascinated to hear from Sheriff's Officials in a courtroom setting why UOC is not acceptable for them but is acceptable for self defense by Citizens. After all, they could call for help then load up when a dangerous situation presents itself, isn't that what they expect from citizens?

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Untamed1972
                          I need a LIFE!!
                          • Mar 2009
                          • 17579

                          Originally posted by SoCal Bob
                          It would be amusing to do a freedom of information act on Sheriff Gore to see how many accidental discharges and negligent discharges the Sheriff's Department has had since they transitioned from revolvers to Glocks, Calm Down!, nothing against Glocks, just a training issue. Since the County's attorney successfully argued that UOC is perfectly acceptable for self defense purposes then why doesn't the Sheriff's Dept UOC to eliminate AD's & ND's.

                          I for one, would be fascinated to hear from Sheriff's Officials in a courtroom setting why UOC is not acceptable for them but is acceptable for self defense by Citizens. After all, they could call for help then load up when a dangerous situation presents itself, isn't that what they expect from citizens?
                          That would be interesting.

                          I have contended that if UOC is sufficient for self-defense then why is there a need for loaded CCW at all? If someone needs to carry loaded for self-defense and meets Gore's requirement for a CCW...isn't that already and admission that UOC is NOT sufficient for self-defense?
                          "Freedom begins with an act of defiance"

                          Quote for the day:
                          "..the mind is the weapon and the hand only its extention. Discipline your mind!" Master Hao, Chenrezi monastery, Valley of the Sun

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            BigDogatPlay
                            Calguns Addict
                            • Jun 2007
                            • 7362

                            Expert analysis that UOC is not a practical means for self defense..... something we've known for years.

                            Might not help sway, but it (along with GFSZ, sensitive places and the like) puts the nails into the coffin of the canard that UOC is an effective means of self defense.
                            -- Rifle, Pistol, Shotgun

                            Not a lawyer, just a former LEO proud to have served.

                            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

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Untamed1972
                              I need a LIFE!!
                              • Mar 2009
                              • 17579

                              Originally posted by BigDogatPlay
                              Expert analysis that UOC is not a practical means for self defense..... something we've known for years.

                              Might not help sway, but it (along with GFSZ, sensitive places and the like) puts the nails into the coffin of the canard that UOC is an effective means of self defense.
                              I think the only real defense to that issue needs to be: "Agents of the gov't do not carry unloaded guns. End of discussion."
                              "Freedom begins with an act of defiance"

                              Quote for the day:
                              "..the mind is the weapon and the hand only its extention. Discipline your mind!" Master Hao, Chenrezi monastery, Valley of the Sun

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              UA-8071174-1