Edward Peruta [above] picked-up the phone and called TTAG regarding our post Alan Gura vs. the NRA on Peruta Decision? Judging from Mr. Peruta’s remarks it the post should have been titled Edward Peruta vs. Charles Nichols on Peruta Residency. Edward maintains that “Charles Nichols as an individual and the President of California Right to Carry has done a disservice to you, your publication and the citizens of California by circulating inaccurate embellished information about me and my case.” Specifically, by suggesting that Mr. Peruta wasn’t qualified for a San Diego concealed carry permit due to his residency. Nichols wrote that . . .
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.
Mr. Peruta told TTAG that his Rocky Hill, Connecticut home is his legal domicile. At the same time, he maintains residency in Los Angeles, Vero Beach and, most importantly, San Diego, California. Peruta maintains a single room in his sister-in-law’s house in San Diego.
Just to make things interesting, the professional news tipster says he lives in a Country Coach motor home which he does not park – cannot park due to its size – at his sister-in-law’s home. It lives in a RV park by the coast.
Peruta’s itinerant lifestyle raises some [debatable] legal questions. Regardless, “I have a core Second Amendment right to have a firearm in my home, whether it’s a permanent home or a motor home.” Bottom line? “The residency issue went away,” Peruta asserts. “The Sheriff dropped that objection. So all that’s left is the issue of ‘good cause.'” Which is still pending.
Meanwhile, Peruta ID’ed his carry gun: a stainless steel Colt .45 Commander. It’s currently sheltering in his gun safe in The Constitution State, pending the outcome of his case. Here’s hoping his carry gun sees the California coastline in due course.
In other 2A litigation news, SCOTUS denied cert. in Drake v. Jerejian. 🙁
Well that’s just great. Those of us stuck in “Will Not” Issue states are screwed.
Hopefully the constitution will be upheld.
Thank goodness his gun is safe in Connecticut.
The way the “Constitution” state has been going lately, I wouldn’t bet my gun rights on that.
Winner
One wonders if Ed Peruta filed the mandatory BOF 4010A form (plus $19 fee) with the California Department of Justice notifying them that he brought his handgun into the state while “residing” here within 60 days of his entering the state?
Because not doing so is a crime, in fact a separate offense for each time he “resided” in California.
What makes you think that he ever brought his handgun into the state? He doesn’t need to have the handgun physically in the state to apply for his CCW.
Also, you really need to stop trying to divide our community. We all support the second amendment. So go back to your open carry case, and stop trying to create divides that don’t exist. What was that quote about hanging separately?
The Second Amendment community is already divided. It is divided between we Open Carry proponents and those pointy headed ones who want to skulk around town carrying concealed weapons in pursuit of secret advantage and unmanly assassination.
“[A] right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.”” District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 – Supreme Court (2008) at 2809.
“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 – Supreme Court (2008) at 2816.
This is why we need national reciprocity
Right to keep and to bear … without infringement.
I read that somewhere.
Can your forward that document to the law makers here in CA? I don’t think they received that memo, must’ve went straight to the spam folder.
Right to bear arms is not present in the CA Constitution. That’s how they’re getting away with it. (Someone here pointed that out to me a while ago and I wish I could remember who it was to give full credit – http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/fact-sheets/2011/guarantees-of-the-right-to-arms-in-stat.aspx)
CA is not in America? YIPPEE!
I’ve said it before, why should you have to get permission? Do you need permission to exercise any other right protected by the constitution? What makes this right any different? In fact considering this right is reinforced with “shall not be infringed” it should be obvious that permission from the government is moot.
If you need permission, it’s not a right, but a privilege. And we don’t have a Bill of Privileges.
Luckily some commenters on that blog entry knew what was going on.
Residency should be IRRELEVENT. As a lawful Citizen of the U.S., ALL Constitutional Rights should apply equally to ALL Citizens no matter what their residence.
This seems to be pretty simple; apparently it takes lawyers, judges and politicians to fisk it up this badly.
The courts HAVE held that a Tent can be considered a residence, and a campsite a ‘home’ for 2nd amendment purposes.
This is exactly right. Thanks Mr. Farago for taking the time to get the details right.
Don
Interesting. I wonder if you treat the 2nd Amendment with the same disregard as the 8th.
Wrong page. Don’t know how to edit.
If TTAG is going to share an article on Facebook, then stop using the #comment link. Every time I open a TTAG share on Facebook, it defaults to the comments and not the article. Annoying.
This article brings up a fascinating point: what about people who truly, honestly, in every sense of the term, are not residents of any state? What about a person who simply travels the country in a motor home and quite literally does not have a state of residence? How do they get a concealed carry license?
There are some other interesting questions for such a person as well. Where do they register to vote?
This is why constitutional rights must not be dependent upon “residency” requirements.
Ed Peruta seems confused about his own case. The district court judge held that Peruta was not a resident and his lawyer, Chuck Michel, appealed that finding of non-residency.
You can read the briefs from Chuck Michel’s own website:
Peruta Circuit Court decision -> http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/order-12.10.10.pdf
Peruta Appellate Opening Brief -> http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Peruta-Opening-Brief.pdf
The Court of Appeals did not address the issue of Peruta’s residency. Instead, it limited its decision to the “good cause” policy of the San Diego Sheriff and remanded the case back to the district court for further proceedings.
In a related concealed carry case out of Ventura County the district court judge held that:
“[T]he Court has analyzed the legislative history pertinent to Section 26150’s use of the term “resident.” That history evidences an intent that county sheriffs grant CWPs only to those persons who are physically present within their respective counties to an extent consistent with the concept of “domicile.”Based on the legislative history located, the Court concludes that it was reasonable for the VCSO to construe Section 26150 to impose a residency requirement “akin to domicile,”…”
Peruta admits that his domicile is not in California -> “Mr. Peruta told TTAG that his Rocky Hill, Connecticut home is his legal domicile.”
Peruta is not domiciled in San Diego County. The court of appeals did not overturn the district court’s finding that Peruta is not a resident.
My personal opinion is that the Second Amendment applies throughout the United States regardless of where one is domiciled or a resident.
But it isn’t my personal opinion that counts, it is the opinion of the courts.
Perhaps people should stop throwing rocks at the messenger and reserve their potshots for the judges who are the ones whose opinions do count.
Hey guys…Let’s just hope wins!!!
Comments are closed.