California Right To Carry (“Home of the only lawsuit seeking to restore Loaded Open Carry to California”) issued the following press release/blog post:
There doesn’t seem to be any love lost between the National Rifle Association and Alan Gura the attorney behind the 2008 US Supreme Court decision on the Second Amendment – District of Columbia v. Heller. When Alan Gura was plodding along en route to the Supreme Court, the National Rifle Association tried to derail his lawsuit (Heller) but failed. Today, Mr. Gura appears to be trying to return the favor. Now the lead attorney in the case of Richards v. Prieto for the Second Amendment Foundation, Mr. Gura is trying to get the NRA case, Peruta v. San Diego, declared moot and vacated . . .
The Peruta decision, decided in February but put on hold until the 9th Circuit decides whether or not to rehear the case, held that there is a right to carry a loaded firearm in public. Although the decision was limited to the Sheriff of San Diego County, as a published decision it could be used as a precedent against other County Sheriffs who refuse to accept self-defense as “good cause” for obtaining a license to carry a handgun concealed.
Mr. Gura’s case was decided in an unpublished memorandum based on the Peruta decision which is probably why Mr. Gura wants the Peruta decision vacated. An unpublished memorandum decision does not establish a precedent anywhere. As far as the courts are concerned, Mr. Gura’s case cannot be cited in support of any future lawsuit seeking to obtain concealed carry permits. I suspect this is important to lawyers. After all, what lawyer wants the other guy to get all of the ink?
Moreover, the disposition of the en banc appeal in Mr. Gura’s lawsuit has been deferred pending the resolution of the Peruta quagmire.
Mr. Gura fired a shot at the NRA when he wrote a brief to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals arguing that “Even were Peruta vacated tomorrow, neither this Court (the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals) nor the state could do anything to keep [Sheriff] Gore from printing permits to all otherwise-qualified comers. The Peruta dispute is moot.”
Sheriff Gore had abandoned his appeal of the Peruta case and said that once the Peruta decision becomes final he will accept self-defense as “good cause” for issuing licenses to carry handguns concealed to San Diego residents. California Attorney General Kamala Harris has petitioned the Court of Appeals to take his place in the appeal.
On May 1st, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, quoting Mr. Gura’s statement from his brief, ordered San Diego Sheriff Gore to tell the court of any change in his policy regarding the issuance of licenses to carry handguns concealed (CCWs) that might render the current appeal moot. If so, the NRA lawyers risk not getting any money from the San Diego County Sheriff’s office.
A similar thing happened two years ago in a lawsuit against Alameda County’s ban on guns in gun shows (not a typo). In the 13th year of litigation, Alamdeda County discovered that its ban on guns in gun shows had an exception allowing for guns to be present during gun shows. As a result, the lawyer who had spent over 12 years litigating the case did not collect one red cent from the County of Alameda. Ironically, the attorney in that case (Nordyke v. King) is Mr. Gura’s co-counsel in the Richards v. Prieto appeal.
If Sheriff Gore says his current policy is to accept self-defense as “good cause” for issuing CCWs then it is likely, but not certain, that the Peruta decision will be declared moot and vacated. This will have the effect of eliminating the chances of the NRA, or Attorney General Harris, from appealing the decision to the US Supreme Court because there will be no decision to appeal. Mr. Gura will have successfully derailed the NRA lawsuit in favor of his lawsuit (Richards v. Prieto) in which there will eventually be a final, appealable decision to the Supreme Court.
There is one important procedural obstacle to this happening. Sheriff Gore’s current policy is to not accept self-defense as “good cause” for the issuance of CCWs until the Peruta decision is final.
If Sheriff Gore insists on waiting until the Peruta decision is final then the Peruta decision will not be vacated at this time. The en banc appeal will continue and the NRA will eventually have a case that can be appealed to the Supreme Court, right alongside Mr. Gura’s case.
There is one other fly in the ointment. I asked San Diego Sheriff Gore if he is going to issue concealed carry permits to non-residents? His PR person replied that he will not.
California law requires that one be a resident of the county in which the permit is issued in order to obtain a permit.
The lead plaintiff in the NRA case, Ed Peruta, is a resident of the State of Connecticut. That is where he lives and that is where he works. When Mr. Peruta visits California he lives out of an RV parked in an RV park on the coast or he lives out of his RV parked in his sister’s driveway.
Occasional visits in an RV does not make one a resident of a county.
Under current California law, even having a home in a county does not make one a resident unless most of his time is spent in that home.
Mr. Peruta, under California law, which Sheriff Gore says he is obligated to uphold, cannot be issued a concealed carry permit and not just because he is an out of state resident but because the Peruta decision itself said that it was not ruling on the constitutionality of any state law.
The Peruta court said the only thing it had decided was that there is a right to carry a loaded firearm in public, self-defense constitutes “good cause” for the issuance of a CCW and that Sheriff’s Gore policy of not accepting self-defense was a violation of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.
The Court of Appeals gave Sheriff Gore until May 14th to comply with its order and file his response.
[h/t Jim]
Maybe I’m just a moron (which is highly likely), but I got a wee but confused trying to follow all the who was derailing whose case and why.
Yeah, me too, so is this guy good or bad?
Alan Gura is an idiot. Yes I know I know he wants all the fame and money. So does the NRA, which sometimes takes on bad cases too.
Shooting down Peruta just so you can try and give your case some validation isn’t helping.
Now that we have self defense as good cause, let’s strive for shall issue. After that open carry.
I mean come on Mr. Gura, Texas, yes Texas is having fits over open carry! This from a a state where when you tell the cops you don’t own a gun they ask you why not?
Undercutting, probably one of the most important rulings in 9th circuit history for your own case is down right stupidity. Remember this isn’t just CA, but also places like Hawaii which are effected too. It is sad we have to do it this way, but we need to make sure we keep our rights intact moving forward.
In fact Peruta needs to be challenged for further clarification. They said because we don’t have open carry we must have concealed. Well does that mean shall issue? Also they left the door open for open carry to remain banned. We need to expand to a solid shall issue with only a gun style, not per serial number, qualification. After that we can take on open carry.
no, no, no. see my post below.
Anyone who believes Charles Nichols is a reliable (let alone unbiased) source and legal analyst is an idiot. Once again TTAG proves to be the spreader of FUD and something that’s actually a net-negative for our cause and culture.
-Brandon
Be patient Brandon,
some here are not so familiar with CA issues and the lessons-learned on awareness of just how complicated the strategy can be, or how close to the vest, that might be at times-
not to mention the occasional but inevitable “loonie” in any bin, including 2A rights proponents.
I remember it took the Calguns forums awhile and some pain to go thru that learning curve…
And that was partly due to your long and patient service in the trenches. Gene, too, and the long-serving mods who keep the threads in semi- sane order…Librarian, others – you know who you are. Bravo Zulu and Press On!
As Vinny said “I’m sooooo confuuuused!”
Of coarse reading only 1 line per paragraph maybe didn’t help matters. Onto the next post.
The NRA tried to derail Heller (Gura was the attorney in that case) and now Gura is trying to derail Peruta. It won’t work.
Less than 24 hours after I published my press release, an attorney published this article which made many of the same points:
“The contention about mootness in the Richards Opposition is factually wrong as to the Sheriff and the State and therefore its legal conclusion is flawed. Peruta could not be moot because no changes have occurred in permit procedure and none will occur until the case is final.
There is a more subtle point implicit in this discussion of mootness. The Peruta decision was a reversal of the District Court’s errorneous denial of summary judgment to Peruta. Therefore, the case was simply reversed and remanded to the District Court.”
There is more good stuff in the article. I recommend that everyone read it.
http://www.law.com/sites/jamesching/2014/05/03/ninth-circuit-issues-order-in-peruta-gun-permit-case-requiring-sheriff-to-clarify-his-status-on-appeal
Robert: I read it twice and reviewed parts more than that, and I think I have it absorbed now. A great piece of reporting. Thank you.
“Even were Peruta vacated tomorrow, neither this Court (the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals) nor the state could do anything to keep [Sheriff] Gore from printing permits to all otherwise-qualified comers. The Peruta dispute is moot.”
Not to throw rocks at the esteemed Mr. Gura, but the dispute is that the sheriff WONT do his job and issue permits for self defense.He’s also not alone in that attitude in CA. The anti gun culture has penetrated the government so thoroughly that if the 9th Circuit or SCOTUS pulled a Posner and said ” Thou Shalt Abide by the 2nd Amendment” tomorrow it would take another year and change of stalling and wailing and continuances before they’d actually comply.
Truth, and more truth! I think the “more” part is germane in this discussion about the intransigence of law enforcement to allow the Second Amendment guarantees to apply toward concealed carry and open carry in their jurisdictions.
Thank God we have complete legal open carry, and easy to obtain concealed carry in my state. I am working with legislators at present to have the $135 fee for a safety training course to be deductible from state taxes for the year in which it was paid or the following year.
So is this a good or a bad thing?
Well on the scale of one to ten I think it’s candy apples.
How do I get a picture next to my name like you have?
It’s easy. Go to http://en.gravatar.com/. The instructions aren’t too hard to figure out.
It’s the shell game of Judicial Review and may be reasonably infringed. The only winning move is not to play. Unfortunately, the game playing began before I was born so I have no choice but to see it played out.
I urge anyone who is still of the “but” mindset of “reasonable restrictions” to evaluate their stance. As long as government is allowed to decide what is an infringement and what is not, the game will continue. That is the wisdom of shall not be infringed; it takes the decision out of government’s hands.
Don’t be a coward and don’t be a slacker. Accept the risks and responsibilities of Liberty instead of trying to shift them off on government.
Accept the risks and responsibilities of Liberty
Exactly how shall we do that?
BY NOT STRUGGLING AGAINST THEM. Are you being serious? Are you all right?
One example: Felons keeping and bearing arms? Okay. That’s accepting a risk associated with individual Liberty. Being responsible for you own safety in case the former felon commits a crime against you? Okay. That’s accepting a responsibility associated with individual Liberty. No billing or finding a person fitting the above two parts of the example? Okay. That’s accepting some risks and responsibilities of individual Liberty.
*It’s late here… towards the end I was talking about voting to no bill (whatever it is called) if on a grand jury and voting not guilty (jury nullification when appropriate) if on a jury in a self defense or firearm in possession of a prohibited person case.
Very good post, John. I couldn’t agree more.
That is the wisdom of shall not be infringed; it takes the decision out of government’s hands.
Apparently not!
The problem with harping on the actual text of the second amendment “shall not be infringed” is that it gives room to anti-gunners to do the same with “well regulated militia”.
I’m not trying to start a debate here on either one of these lines, The supreme court said in Heller: “the adjective ‘well-regulated’ implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.”
Okay then…..what is proper discipline and training? We can discuss the meaning of words all day long, but at heart of it you need to get people to believe in your cause.
There’s enough ancillary writings from the time to pin that down and that the militia is essentially (notice I wrote “essentially” as I don’t want to split hairs right now) the People. In order to be well regulated in the sense necessary to secure a free state, the militia must be unimpeded by government in the keeping and bearing of all arms. As foreign and domestic governments are part of what the militia is deterring, our government can’t regulate, impede, make illegal, whatever the individual’s right to keep and bear arms.
Seriously, it is pretty obvious given what the people who wrote the darned 2A just went through. Also, it’s not like they didn’t leave volumes written about Liberty and government. IMHO, there should have been an outright rebellion when Marbury v. Madison usurped power.
As to getting people to believe in a cause. I’ve been at it a long time now and frankly I don’t give a damn. If the American people are too stupid and/or too lazy to be free then the hell with them; they don’t deserve it. If the People decide to do some major civil unrest then I’m there. In the meantime, I participate in my own ways.
I would do anything I could to get the courts to rule on loaded open carry. Historically, that is the right, and the judges know it. What better way to force the legislature to relax restrictions on concealed carry: “We need to provide incentive to get those crazy gun nuts to hide their scary guns!”
Peruta established California residency before the case was filed. He is, apparently, a permanent CA resident. So, that part of the article is not only incorrect, but the theories built on it [Gura has a better case] are also incorrect.
For a more comprehensive understanding of the legal and media circus in California, why not visit the experts? http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/forumdisplay.php?s=&daysprune=&f=330
The article is wrong, you can be a part time resident. In fact, a “part time” resident can get a state ID card.
Plenty of “part time” residents in CA have a carry license.
Or just walk across the border.
I am also confused. More coffee!
Beer! The Sun is well over the yardarm!
Take all this with a grain of salt. California Open Carry is really just a guy name Charles Nichols (who appears to be a non-lawyer) and his personal lawsuit challenging open carry.
If you go through his site, he seems to have a thing for Alan. I suspect it is mainly because the 2nd Amendment foundation has taken the position that states cannot outright ban carry, but must permit either open or concealed, i.e. they can’t ban both. That position is killing Nichols’s suit.
Just because some guy starts a website and brings a law suit doesn’t mean he knows what he’s talking about. Remember Tresmond’s challenge to the NY Safe Act? That went exactly nowhere. The 2nd Amendment foundation, however, got the 7 rounds in a mag limit overturned. Not a total victory, but a reasonable challenge that worked.
As far the line about the other guy “getting ink,” that’s utter nonsense. Alan got Heller…and McDonald! That’s like being awarded two Medals of Honor and being upset that the other guy got a Silver Star.
Tresmond’s lawsuit is still pending. He’s quite experience and has help many NY pistol license holders throughout the years.
You are thinking of the Dwinsky case that challenge the emergency enactment of the SAFE Act.
Tresmond certainly thinks it’s going somewhere, but he’s been wrong almost every step of the way so far.
He’s got the passion, but he’s a divorce lawyer who doesn’t seem to recognize that his belief in his case doesn’t mean the judge will agree.
Concur w Armchair Commando. RF I am a little disappointed in this article that appears to simply repost Nichols blog verbatim. He is entitled to his opinion but there is a pattern of FUD going back aways and spreading it here does 2A rights believers no favors nationally. Think “circular firing squad”.
There is a chess game underway and the hard lesson learned at Calguns about bitter debates and speculation by either iexperienced counsel who are not qualified to practice before SCOTUS, or who cannot their own client/petitioners, who are either poor examples as sypathetic role models for the issue at hand (think Embody) AND worse, who can’t help publicly harming themselves and the patient strategy that IS working by compulsively blogging for attention, and compounding that by publicly smearing others who disagree with their own pro se lawyering.
This is before the Courts with key decisions due soon…that being a relative term but in comparison to other timelines is now like NEXT DAY. Lets not give comfort to our enemies, or their hired trolls, or spend any time in circular firing squads here at TTAG by getting naively sucked into the drama of loose screws who are pi$$d because no one listens to them elsewhere….
my $0.02 and YMMV.
Standing by to apologize if I am proven wrong or to be Moderated if this steps on editorial toes…
Now this is a sentence!
There is a chess game underway and the hard lesson learned at Calguns about bitter debates and speculation by either iexperienced counsel who are not qualified to practice before SCOTUS, or who cannot their own client/petitioners, who are either poor examples as sypathetic role models for the issue at hand (think Embody) AND worse, who can’t help publicly harming themselves and the patient strategy that IS working by compulsively blogging for attention, and compounding that by publicly smearing others who disagree with their own pro se lawyering.
Hope you’re not a lawyer
Me a Lawyer…? Them’s fightin’ words!
The Tresmond lawsuit went “nowhere” because the NRA’s case, filed in federal district court, was binding in the district where the Tresmonds had first brought suit in state court. The Tresmonds’ case is now stayed, pending appeal of the NRA case
It seems to me that our problem is that the antis can toss more cases at the courts than anyone could reasonably respond to. We need the sort of decision in our favor that will slow them down.
Otherwise, we are forever on the defensive, and you’d better believe that’s their strategy.
Huh? There are a few inaccuracies in this article. The biggest one was that Peruta was, in fact, a resident when the car was filed.
Regardless of whether or not you think that Peruta was (or is) a resident the district court judge held that Peruta was not a resident. Peruta appealed the finding of the district court regarding his residency and the court of appeals did not address that issue. The only thing the court of appeals held to be unconstitutional was the “good cause” policy of the Sheriff.
Unless and until Peruta gets his CCW or removes himself from the case, the Peruta decision cannot be rendered moot despite Gura’s wish to the contrary.
This article reinforces my dislike and distrust of excessive litigation, legislation, and general bureaucracy.
NO, NO, NO. sigh, no.
You have to read the context of the actual brief (here http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/richards-v-prieto/en-banc-Opposition-2014-04-11.pdf).
Gura is opposing the AG Harris’ motion to intervene, who seeks an en banc review of Peruta. An en banc review of Peruta would result in Peruta being vacated subject to en banc review. See section III titled: “California Lacks Standing to Enter Disputes Concerning County Sheriff Policies”
This is critically important: Because the SCT is holding Drake right now , there are two good outcomes and one bad one. The bad one is en banc review. The two good ones are: Gore changes the policy before Peruta becomes final (the case is moot); Peruta becomes final with no en banc review.
Either of the two good outcomes result in SCT taking Drake.
Gura forced the court to confront the fact that: Gore is really the proper party to seek a review (the AG prior to now has bent over backwards to stay out); Gore essentially acquiesced to Perut and decided not to appeal. This could mean the panel is leaning towards denying the AG motion and denying en banc.
I personally do not think that Harris will appeal to the SCT if they lose. Like the IL decision, the national anti-gunners want to prevent shall-issue from going national. What they want to do is convince an en banc court to hear the case. By that time, Drake will have been denied cert. Maybe they win or lose en banc at the 9th, but either way the damage is limited to CA and HI.
I think having the 9th take Peruta en banc and uphold Peruta is really the worst outcome, because if Harris does not seek appeal, then the Northeast is stuck with suck-ass may issue for the next ten years as the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th circuits will have already been passed over.
Gura is a heck of a lot smarter than whoever wrote this CA right to carry post.
This sounds a lot more sensible than the article, which just left me confused.
If you think THIS was confusing, you should read that garbage that Nichols has filed in the Ninth Circuit. Nichols is not, never has been, and god willing, never will be a lawyer. He is a self-aggrandizing in prop per litigant who has decided that open carry is the one, the true, and the only constitutional right to carry, and seeks to undermine anyone who disagrees with him, in particular Alan Gura, SAF, and CalGuns Foundation. is in pro per lawsuit claims that California cannot constitutionally outlaw open carry, and field a motion for preliminary injunction–which for the nonlawyers out there, requires a showing that the proponent is substantially likely to prevail, and is in any event is a motion that the grant or denial of which lies within the trial court’s sound discretion. When the word “discretion” appears, it means that the appellate court cannot and will not disagree with a lower court’s decision simply because it disagrees with it, but only if the trial court “abused its discretion.” “Abuse of discretion is nearly impossible to prove. In any event, Nichols lost his motion, and he appealed, convinced that his case would go straight to the head of the line and, when he had prevailed, would put all the lawyers to shame. Well, he was wrong about that too–his case has been stayed until Peruta–a real case with real lawyers, argues the same day as Gura’s case, is finally adjudicated.
Nichols’ blog post is just a bunch of sour grapes. It should be taken seriously–and it certainly cannot not be considered the truth about anything! Context is everything. The motion currently pending in Peruta is whether the Attorney General–who would absolutely HATE to see “shall issue” come to California–should be allowed to intervene as a party and take over a case that Sheriff Gore decided to not to further appeal. What Gura said is simply this–the California statute says it is the sheriff who exercises discretion in deciding who gets a CCW permit, not the AG, and thus allowing the AG to intervene will accomplish nothing because, even if Peruta was vacated and/or reversed, it would still be the sheriff exercising discretion, not the A. The AG does NOT have the authority to direct the sheriffs how to exercise their power, contrary to the argument the AG presented as a basis for allowing her to intervene (i.e., that as the “supervisor” of the sheriffs, she can tell them to enforce a particular policy). Gura was therefore nullifying the AG’s power grab.
Unfortunately, Mr. Nichols is wither too stupid or too stubborn (or both) to understand this.
Absolutely spot on analysis.
Thanks for the breakdown DWB! I passed this article on to Robert after being thoroughly confused by it. Apparently, CA Open Carry are the ones that are confused. It’s good to learn the lay of the state issues when you’re from other places in the country.
The fundamental error on the part of the NRA was to take a case on behalf of a client who was not qualified to be issued a CCW because he was not a resident of the jurisdiction. Big Fail. If this gets to the Supreme Court that will be their decision, there is no case as the complainant is not even a resident of the county where he is trying to get a permit.
BZZZZT. Wrong answer! You can have dual residency, for one, and Peruta had established residency. Nor was he the only plaintiff, and all of the others were indisputably permanent residents of San Diego county. Moreover, Peruta’s residency was NOT an issue on appeal, nor was it determined by the trial court. If Pertuat goes any further, residency will STILL NOT be an issue. The one, the only issue in Peruta is whether a sheriff can require more than a desire to provide for one’ own self-defense as “good cause” for issuance of a CCW.
Can some one help me out here? I wasn’t aware the NRA tried to derail Heller. Why?
The most reasoned article on the NRA’s problems with the Heller case can be found here
http://reason.com/archives/2008/11/18/how-the-second-amendment-was-r
They were afraid the ruling would go the other way, and the 2nd would effectively become a dead letter (i.e., “the court finds that the right to keep and bear arms is a collective right, and states may regulate private ownership of firearms as they see fit”).
I don’t blame the NRA for worrying about it. Having seen the ever-tightening restrictions passed in the 80s and 90s, it was a plausible scenario.
The counter argument being that there’s not much use in them not ruling if the “militia interpretation” becomes the practical reality anyway.
Yeah, but that becomes an argument for why the NRA should be counting judicial confirmation votes for a Senator’s grade, not an argument for being less selective about which cases you litigate.
@Hannibal: I would rather the court make their plain statement: collective or individual, shall not be infringed or can be infringed. At least then freedom loving, constitution aware people will know what the score is going to be. Yep, this dancing around the elephant gets more stale the older I get. Criminals certainly seem to enjoy more real Liberty, especially those who simply don’t care all that much anymore. Heck, the criminals in government enjoy a whole lot more Liberty than the rest of us.
This “not a good enough case, afraid it will lose” attitude has been going on for 30 years, seems like a ball-free approach. Our rights kept being infringed more and more, including Clinton’s ban, and the NRA just let it go on. I’m big on the NRA, but this is not their finest showing, it needed to go to the courts or to the field. And the decision was obviously correct whatever they said, since our side won. A mea culpa would be nice.
If Sandra Day O’Connor hadn’t retired while the case was making its way up to SCOTUS, you’d be saying something completely different.
Hopefully the SCOTUS will take Drake tomorrow, and none of this will matter.
Unfortunately the court being chicken dribble wont take anything that will upset the apple cart.But I hope you are correct.
The odds always favor the house. Place yer bets… pick a color… pick a number. Round and round she goes. I sure hope the wheel isn’t rigged. 😉
doubt it. It’s been re-listed twice already. Prevailing theory is they are awaiting Peruta. Alternate theory is they are doing due diligence to ensure its a good vehicle (NJ law is kinda confusing). Now, maybe the Perua panel order on Thursday had an impact either way, but I doubt it. I think we are in a waiting game on Drake for a while. Of course, I hope I’m wrong.
Drake has been continued again to May 15.
As of now, neither Scotusblog nor the SCT docket is updated, and the orders are not out, so no way you could know that. Mind you, good guess, probably.
I need some plain English here.
If the articles right or wrong.
What establishes what here??
If Peruta is a resident or not shouldn’t matter.
Its setting a precident for the county therefore the state correct??
If Gura is saying the case is moot because Peruta is a non resident??
Then isn’t the case representing all of the County??
So again whos the good guy here???
If this all about the $$$ screwem all.
The article is wrong. Peruta technically only binding on the Sheriff of San Diego County, but is precedential for all district courts in the state, which will then apply the ruling to any recalcitrant sheriff in any other county (LA, SF…). It is not “about the money” and it is not about any spitting match between the NRA and SAF/Alan Gura, it is all about whether the California Attorney general should or should not be permitted to become a party to the case, in the place of Sheriff Gore, who ahs had enough and wants out.
I don’t see anywhere where Gura says the Peruta case is moot. He says the dispute is moot referring to the AG’s petition for standing in the case. Sounds to me like people are trying to drum up conflicts that don’t exist.
Whoever wrote this has not a single clue how legal briefs work.
Even the SAF/CGF haters on Calguns.net are saying it’s BS. Mooting the dispute would NOT repeal Peruta in the slightest; it would merely moot CA DOJ’s attempts to fight it.
Way to sow discord for no reason.
Yeah if you’re just going to regurgitate another blog why not just link to it instead of giving the text as if it was written for TTAG?
Mr. Nichols, the lying liar that he is, is of course misrepresenting the Peruta litigation to his own ends.
Even if Peruta himself isn’t a resident of California, there are two or three additional co-plaintiffs who do not have this issue or problem. San Diego conceded Peruta’s residency in California.
That’s correct Gray. You and I both know of “part time” residents in CA who have a carry license.
CA’s definition of “resident” when undefined defaults to the tax code. Being that Ed Peruta owns property in SD County, he can apply as a resident, that’s why Gore conceded that point.
Thank you Gray, for this reminder for those new to the players and politics in CA,
and for your long patient effort explaining the court process and salient facts at Calguns.
Mr. Gura wants all the publicity to himself, despite bothing parts of Heller and almost loosing McDonald. remember only 1 justice went for the P or I ruling Gura wanted. It was NRA and Paul Clement that came is and salvaged his poor perfromance.
If the case is mooted, then there is even less reason to take up Drake as a split no longer exists on the good cause or good moral charcter clasue of may issue states. They best way to get a case up is to mave the split and conflict between the circuit courts.
While the issue of the CA AG not haveing standing, may have merit, courts bend over backwards to accomidate state AGs.
In this case, if en banc were denied it would be very good for the split, but the Sheriff will not take it up on appeal. Best for us would be for SCOTUS to consolodate both cases. And here them.
I was going to comment on the points that were wrong here, but as I went through it, I realized that would entail almost every word in the post.
So instead, I’ll just leave you with this:
http://www.quickmeme.com/img/c3/c366ecb1df0098ca3249d3bd69f87c06451bcfc7b03953a6c322e063402ecb83.jpg
When are these stupid bastards going to realize that you only hurt law abiding citizens by making new gun laws that either restrict or ban them? /rant off/
Serious question? You don’t grasp that they are, in fact, out to hurt law-abiding citizens? Law-abiding citizens are what stands between them and totalitarianism.
You wrote it before I could.
It’s about power, control, as much as they can grab. They’ve already raped the People over and over again. They’re just indulging themselves since the People have been their bitch for too long. And then we have the statist panty-wastes making the rape easier to commit.
Dozer, if you’re going to give crappy legal advice, I’d strongly suggest learning to spell first. It gives your ignorance at least a slight chance of being believed.
Ed Peruta, at the time the judgment was issued did not own property in San Diego County. He did own property in Los Angeles County but did not apply to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s department for a license. It is in the district court pleadings that Peruta lived out of his RV and his sister giving him a closet to keep spare clothing in did not qualify Peruta as a full time resident or even as a part-time resident under the Sheriff’s liberal interpretation of residency. The district court concluded that Peruta was a non-resident.
In its order granting Sheriff Gore’s motion for summary judgment the district court judge said this:
“For the reasons stated below, in differentiating between residents (and part-time residents who spend more than six months of the taxable year within the County) and non-residents, Defendant utilizes means that are substantially related to a substantial governmental interest. Because residents and non-residents are situated differently, the residency requirement of Defendant’s policy does not violate equal protection. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ equal protection claim as it relates to Defendant’s residency requirement.”
The “Defendant” was of course Ed Peruta.
In March, I emailed the San Diego Sheriff asking if there was a change in the residency requirement. His office responded that there was not.
Peruta raised as an issue on appeal the Sheriff’s residency requirement. The Peruta decision by the court of appeals did not rule on the residency controversy. Instead, it reversed and remanded the case back to the district court for further proceedings based on the Sheriff’s failure to accept self-defense as “good cause” for the issuance of a CCW.
Peruta’s residency is still “at issue” and until Peruta either gets his CCW, removes himself as a Plaintiff or the courts ultimately decides that he fails the residency requirement (keeping in mind that the court of appeals said it was not ruling on the constitutionality of the state law) there is still a live case or controversy before the court and the case cannot be rendered moot.
Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org
President, Secretary, Vice President, Chairman of the Board, and sole member, right Chucky?
As much as you would like to, you aren’t worthy to lick the shoes of any of my members:
Last Update: April 21, 2014 12:03 pm
Aaron G. Canoga Park, CA
Aaron Z. Long Beach, CA
Abner S. Pleasant Hill, CA
Adam M. Rocklin, CA
Adrian S. Huntington Beach, CA
Alan G. Sacramento, CA
ALAN R. Fernley, NV
Alex Y. San Diego, CA
Alexander V. Campbell, CA
Alfredo G. Hawthorne, CA
Aliaksandr Y. San Diego, CA
Ambros B. Ridgecrest, CA
Amy D. Sacramento, CA
Andrew D. Oceanside, CA
Andrew G. Fremont, CA
Andrew K. Livermore, CA
Anonymous Torrance, CA
Anthony E. CORPUS CHRISTI, TX
Anthony M. redlands, CA
Antonio G. Bloomington, CA
Arne B. El Granada, CA
Arthur G. San Jose, CA
Ben A. Los Angeles, CA
Benjamin A. Valley Springs, CA
Bert C. Merced, CA
Brad C. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
Brad H. OAKLEY, CA
Brad H. Fairfield, CA
Bradley C. Anaheim, CA
Bradley H. Oakley, CA
Bradley T. Beverly Hills, CA
Brett J. Encinitas, CA
Brett S. San Luis Obispo, CA
Brett W. Wyandotte, MI
Brian K, Lake Stevens, WA
Brian T. Merced, CA
Brian O. Arcata, CA
Bruce B.
Bruce F. San Jose, CA
Bruno S. Rolling Hills Estates,
Bryan K. San Francisco, CA
Bryan M. Bermuda Dunes, CA
Bychkov M. Lafayette, CA
Cary C. Simi valley, CA
Charles M. Granada Hills, CA
Chris G. Florence, OR
Chris V. Huntington Beach, CA
Christopher A. Manteca, CA
Christopher C. Antioch, CA
Christopher C. Bellflower, CA
Christopher C. South Pasadena, CA
Christopher F. Vacaville, CA
Christopher R. Bakersfield, CA
Christopher R. Fairfield, CA
Clay C. WHITTIER, CA
Cleb W.
Cliff C. Lemoore, CA
Clinton H, Newport Beach, CA
Coleen D. Seaside, CA
Cory W. San Jose, CA
Courtney L. Torrance, CA
Craig A. Corcoran, CA
Craig H. CASTRO VALLEY, CA
Craig L. Cool, CA
Cuauhtemoc T. Salinas, CA
D G. Fontana, CA
Dan H. Danville, CA
Daniel A.
Daniel H. South Gate, CA
Darrik H. Corona, CA
Darryl S. Upland, CA
Daryl D. Simi Valley, CA
Dave G. Long Beach, CA
Dave G. San Jose, CA
Dave H. San Marcos, CA
Dave L. Anaheim, CA
Dave S. Santa Rosa, CA
David B. Grand Rapids, MI
David C. San Bruno, CA
David G. Santa Rosa, CA
David L. Sebastopol, CA
David M. Quartz Hill, CA
Derek J. Moreno Valley, CA
Derek J. Riverside, CA
Diana F. Benicia, CA
Dimitri K. Los Angeles, CA
Douglas F. Roseville, CA
Douglas F. San Diego, CA
Douglas R. Menlo Park, CA
Drew S. SAN JOSE, CA
Dusty L. Temecula, CA
Dylan C. Americus, KS
Edward J. Rancho Palos Verdes,
Enrique L. Torrance, CA
Erik O. Murrieta, CA
Ernesto G, Lawndale, CA
Eugene A. Alameda, CA
Fer G.
Ferdinand C. Santa Ana, CA
Fernando G. Mountain View, CA
Fernando M, Whittier , CA
Franco P. Palm Springs, CA
Fred W. Sutter Creek, CA
Gardner B. San Francisco, CA
Gary C. Vacaville, CA
Geoffrey M. San Pedro, CA
George P. Bellflower, CA
Gerry N. Carlsbad, CA
Gregory G. Santa Clara, CA
Gregory L. Tracy, CA
Gregory M. Walnut Creek, CA
Gregory T. Eureka, CA
Greg W. Monrovia, CA
Guy St O. Ontario, CA
Heather B. Nashville, TN
Heriberto Y. Calexico, CA
Henry C. Hayward, CA
Henry V. San Bernardino, CA
Indolfo L. Moreno Valley, CA
ISRAPHAN T. Lake Elsinore, CA
Jack K. Folsom, CA
James A. Salinas, CA
James B, Valley Center, CA
James C. American Canyon, CA
James C. Hawthorne, CA
James C. Whittier, CA
James D. Hermosa Beach, CA
James H, MOJAVE, CA
James P. Carson, CA
James S. Huntington Beach, CA
Jane T. San Leandro, CA
Jason G. Santa Maria, CA
Jason S. Huntington Beach, CA
Jeffrey B. Laguna Niguel, CA
Jeffrey L. San Francisco, CA
Jeremy J. FPO
Jesse C. Antioch, CA
Jesse G. Hayward, CA
Joel K. San Jose, CA
Joel P. Las vegas, NV
John B. Yreka, CA
John C. Los Angeles, CA
John G. San Jose, CA
John J. Fontana, CA
John M. Turlock, CA
John M. Newbury Park, CA
John N. Blue Jay, CA
John S. San Diego, CA
Jonathan B. Jacksonville, OR
Jordan C. Burbank, CA
Joseph F, Wrightwood, CA
Joseph Z. Sherman Oaks, CA
Jsmes J. Los Angeles, CA
Juan C, Long Beach, CA
Juan O. Concord, CA
Justin H. Riverside, CA
Ken F. Sacramento, CA
Klaus F. Trona, CA
Larry L. San Jose, CA
Lawrence B. Moreno Valley, CA
Lawrence F. San Pedro, CA
Lawrence L. AGUANGA, CA
Luis S. Bloomington, CA
Madison J. Riverside, CA
Manfred K. Laguna Hills, CA
Manuel P. Tracy, CA
Marc D. Newark, CA
Mark C. North Hills, CA
Mark D. Lake Elsinore, CA
Mark M. Ventura, CA
Mark N. Roseville, CA
Marla W. Seaside, CA
Marvin M. Santa Maria, CA
Maury P. Lafayette, CA
Michael B.
Michael B. Lawndale, CA
Michael B. Newport Beach, CA
Michael J. Morgan Hill, CA
Michael M. Hermosa Beach, CA
Michael R. Red Bluff, CA
Michael R. San Marcos, CA
Michael R. St. Louis, MO
Miguel O. Brawley, CA
Mike C. Lomita, CA
Mike G. Trinidad, CA
Mike T. Marina Del Rey, CA
Mikel C, Orangevale, CA
Minh L, San Jose, CA
Nace B. Torrance CA
Nautee E. Alhambra, CA
Nevin G. Saratoga, CA
Nickolas B. Los Altos Hills, CA
Norbert B. San Jose, CA
Patricia C. Thousand Oaks, CA
Paul C. Fontana, CA
Phil B. Altadena, CA
Phillip R. San Diego, CA
Randall S. Moreno Valley, CA
Randy G. Upland, CA
Ray P. Torrance, CA
Rhonda L. Ramona, CA
Richard G. Santa Ana, CA
Richard I. Woodland Hills, CA
Richard M. Fresno, CA
Richard W. Terrell, TX
Robert A. Fairfax, VA
Robert M. Palm Springs, CA
Robert M. Vista, CA
Robert N. Woodland, CA
Rod C. San Jose, CA
Ronald L.
Ronald S. San Diego, CA
Ryan L. Beaverton, OR
Ryan R. Discovery Bay, CA
Sam G. El cajon, CA
Sam G. Lakeside, CA
Saman M. Los Angeles, CA
Sandra H. Redwood City, CA
Saul V. Santa Ana, CA
Scott B. San Francisco, CA
Scott H. San Diego, CA
Scott S. Oceanside, CA
Sean T. Sunnyvale, CA
Sidney A. Tarzana, CA
Stan O. Lincoln, CA
Stefan T. Camarillo, CA
Stephen H. Alta Loma, CA
Steve B. Nipomo, CA
Steven G. Mission Viejo, CA
Steven P. Bellflower, CA
Taylor B. Orange, CA
The V. Rancho Cordova, CA
Theo H. El Cajon, CA
Thomas B. San Jose, CA
Thomas C.
Thomas W. Citrus Heights, CA
Timothy M. Oakley, CA
Toby V. Mountain View, CA
Tom B. Upland, CA
Tomasz P. San Jose, CA
Travis T. Bloomington, CA
Tyler F. San Luis Obispo, CA
Tyler S. Woodland Hills, CA
Van D. Felton, CA
Vickie G. Martinez, CA
Warren B. San diego, CA
Warren H. Pasadena, CA
Wayne B. Mesquite, TX
Wayne C. Nashville, TN
Wesley M. Riverside, CA
William C. Milwaukie, OR
William G. West Covina, CA
William J. Bartlett, TN
William P. Vacaville, CA
William R. OAKLAND, CA
William W. Laguna Woods, CA
Mr Farrago is usually right about a lot of things.
As far as Mr. Peruta’s residential status in CA, he is wrong. Ed Perruta is domiciled in CT. He is also a resident of CA. A residence is anywhere you make a home. You can be the resident of multiple states, provided that you make a home there. Mr. Peruta’s carry permit was first denied on the basis of him not being a resident. He explained that he makes a home in CA in the winter. He is not merely visiting. The issuing authority agreed with him and removed lack of residence as a reason for denial.
It is a common misconception among gun people that you can only legally be a resident of one state. If you don’t quite understand the ATF’s position on this, you simply need to read the instructions for questions 2 and 20 on the ATF form 4473. – Don
“For the reasons stated below, in differentiating between residents (and part-time residents who spend more than six months of the taxable year within the County) and non-residents, Defendant utilizes means that are substantially related to a substantial governmental interest. Because residents and non-residents are situated differently, the residency requirement of Defendant’s policy does not violate equal protection. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ equal protection claim as it relates to Defendant’s residency requirement.” Peruta v. County of San Diego, 758 F. Supp. 2d 1106 – Dist. Court, SD California (2010) at 119.
The “Defendant” was of course Ed Peruta.
See also the Peruta opening brief in his appeal where he challenged the district court’s determination that Peruta failed to meet the residency requirement. The court of appeals did not rule on the constitutionality of the state residency requirement (or any other aspect of a state law). The court of appeals limited the scope of its decision to the “good cause” definition of the Sheriff’s CCW policy.
The ATF has no say in how a state defines residency for the purpose of interpreting state law.
As has been pointed out there is a typo, by “Defendant” I meant Ed Peruta, the lead Plaintiff.
Footnote 10 of the citation I just provided sums it up:
“[10] The only Plaintiff who alleges the residency requirement impacted his application is Edward Peruta, and the parties agree that Peruta’s application was denied for lack of “good cause.” See Pls.’ Consolidated SUF ¶ 15. In addition to challenging the residency requirement as applied to Peruta, Plaintiffs challenge facial validity of the residence requirement.”
The Peruta appellate decision limited the scope of its decision to the as-applied “good cause” challenge.
Gore conceded Peruta was a resident.
TTAG has reported lies by a liar. Gura is not seeking to vacate Peruta…he even cited it in his petition for Drake.
Nichols is a loon. TTAG just lowered its journalistic standard by essentially quote an article so full of manure, that it belong in the rags of infowars and like places.
What is it with you nutters from Calguns? All you do is throw your feces around. You can’t even come up with the flimsiest of facts to support even a half-brained argument.
“For the reasons stated below, in differentiating between residents (and part-time residents who spend more than six months of the taxable year within the County) and non-residents, Defendant utilizes means that are substantially related to a substantial governmental interest. Because residents and non-residents are situated differently, the residency requirement of Defendant’s policy does not violate equal protection. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ equal protection claim as it relates to Defendant’s residency requirement.” Peruta v. County of San Diego, 758 F. Supp. 2d 1106 – Dist. Court, SD California (2010) at 119.
The “Defendant” was of course Ed Peruta.
See also the Peruta opening brief in his appeal where he challenged the district court’s determination that Peruta failed to meet the residency requirement. The court of appeals did not rule on the constitutionality of the state residency requirement (or any other aspect of a state law). The court of appeals limited the scope of its decision to the “good cause” definition of the Sheriff’s CCW policy.
Footnote 10 of the citation I just provided sums it up:
“[10] The only Plaintiff who alleges the residency requirement impacted his application is Edward Peruta, and the parties agree that Peruta’s application was denied for lack of “good cause.” See Pls.’ Consolidated SUF ¶ 15. In addition to challenging the residency requirement as applied to Peruta, Plaintiffs challenge facial validity of the residence requirement.”
The Peruta appellate decision limited the scope of its decision to the as-applied “good cause” challenge. It did not take up the residency question Peruta raised on appeal.
Sheriff Gore says his residency policy has not changed after Peruta.
You may now resume throwing your feces around.
“Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ equal protection claim as it relates to Defendant’s residency requirement.” Peruta v. County of San Diego, 758 F. Supp. 2d 1106 – Dist. Court, SD California (2010) at 119.
The ‘Defendant’ was of course Ed Peruta.”
No matter how many times you spam this thread with the same copied and pasted text, the “Defendants” are the County of San Diego and William Gore.
Edward Peruta is what we call a “Plaintiff”.
And only a moron is blinded by a typo.
You know damn well That POS..T Kamalla Harris is going to pressure Gore to say he has changed his reasoning foe issue and that will shoot down further attempts at Shall Issue!
The two million gangbangers in California are eating popcorn ,smiling waiting for Californians to continue to lose their rights.They all celebrated Cinco De Mayo AND Cinco De Kamala Harris today.Hooray for unarmed victims in California……YEAAA!!!
Gura has done a lot for us but I do sense he is in it for the money and fame more then he is a true believer in the Gun Rights. I was turned off by him when I hard him say something to the effect that he was not a big fan of AR-15’s and AK-47’s. The word ARMS means “ordinary military equipment”.
backside of your car and in the roof areas according to your comfort and they generally range in costs from $100 to $3000. The second thing you will want to have is your future proof decision when you have selected the best-quality car DVD players. But anything which is outdated will never be in your consideration while buying these gadgets for your cars.
Wedding cards http://www.vowscard.com
Comments are closed.