The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 27, 2011, 10:41 PM   #26
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,530
From the NRA brief, the fundamental flaw in logic in the County's position:
Quote:
But the right to carry a firearm only for immediate self-defense is no right at all. The "right" does not materialize until it is too late to exercise. Unless criminals and other who pose the threats that a right to self-defense protects against plan to announce their intent to present a grave and immediate threat and then take a time out to enable the potential victim to exercise his or her Second Amendment rights, a right to immediate self-defense is entirely illusory.
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.
KyJim is online now  
Old May 27, 2011, 11:13 PM   #27
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,297
???

Muggers don't call ahead to make appointments in California? How uncivilized!
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old May 31, 2011, 04:37 PM   #28
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,307
Another amicus brief is in.

The International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association (ILEETA), and the Independence Institute, in support of neither party. Authored by David Kopel.

This is a hard hitting look at open carry, California style (Unloaded Open Carry - UOC) and why it is dangerous to all concerned. Why the court below erred in its conclusion that UOC was adequate and why concealed carry for ordinary citizens is the manner preferred by most police authorities.

While I have yet to read more than a few pages (I'm on lunch break), I have attached it to this post.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf ILEETA-Amicus-Brief.pdf (365.8 KB, 17 views)
Al Norris is offline  
Old May 31, 2011, 04:40 PM   #29
aarondhgraham
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 1, 2009
Location: Stillwater, OKlahoma
Posts: 7,060
How uncivilized,,,

Quote:
Muggers don't call ahead to make appointments in California? How uncivilized!
Time for the California legislature to make another law,,,
Dont you think?

Aarond
__________________
Caje: The coward dies a thousand times, the brave only once.
Kirby: That's about all it takes, ain't it?
Combat: "A Silent Cry"
Aarond is good,,, Aarond is wise,,, Always trust Aarond! (most of the time)
aarondhgraham is offline  
Old May 31, 2011, 11:08 PM   #30
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,307
It's been a very busy day for the Peruta appeal (9th Circuit Court).

As I posted earlier, ILEETA filed an amicus brief. That was on Monday, the 30th of May. Here is a recap of what has happened:

On 5.23.11 Plaintiff-Appellants Appellants’ Opening Brief.

5.25.11 Amici Amicus Brief for Congress of Racial Equality Inc.. Stephan Halbrook.

5.27.11 Amici Amicus Curiae Brief of National Rifle Association of America, Inc., In Support of Appellants And Reversal. Paul D, Clement.

5.30.11 Amici Amicus Brief International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association and The Independence Institute. David Hardy.

5.31.11 Amici Brief of Second Amendment Foundation and Calguns Foundation, Inc. The Calguns Foundation, Inc., Adam Richards, And Brett Stewart As Amici Curiae In Support of Appellants Seeking Reversal. Alan Gura.

5.31.11 Amici Brief of Amici Curiae Center For Constitutional Jurisprudence, Doctors For Responsible Gun Ownership, And Law Enforcement Alliance of America. John C. Eastman.

5.31.11 Amici Gun Owners of California Senator H. L. Richardson (Ret.) Amicus Brief In Support of Appellants. Don Kates.
1. Amicus Brief Exhibit A
2. Amicus Brief Addendum
This is all currently posted at http://michellawyers.com/guncasetrac...rutavsandiego/. This was the last day to file for amicus in support of (or in support of neither) the appellants.

OK, this is a lot of reading to comprehend. I've skimmed all the briefs and they are all good. Some better than others. Yet they all attack San Diego County and the court below. Several attack the panel that decided Nordyke.

The SAF amicus brief specifically mentions that they intend to relate the recent Prieto (now on appeal to the 9th) case with Peruta and state that they want orals on the same day (Gura says filings to that effect are due shortly). This is Gura playing hardball.

Those of you that like a little "light" reading, enjoy!
Al Norris is offline  
Old June 1, 2011, 06:23 AM   #31
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,013
You've been a busy man, Al. Thanks for all of this. Hopefully, I'll get some time later today to digest some of these.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old August 12, 2011, 08:31 PM   #32
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,307
The Appellees (County) in Peruta v. San Diego have filed their response to the Appellants (Ed Peruta, et al) opening brief in the 9th Circuit. The Bradys along with the International Brotherhood of Police Officers and the Police Foundation have filed an amicus brief in support of San Diego.

The Bradys are, of course, pounding the table with, "In The Home!"

Both briefs spend some time telling the court how the discretionary laws of CA are quite constitutional, as CA law allows unloaded open carry. They are both silent on how you can not carry openly (unloaded or loaded) anywhere within those GFSZ's! Even under Federal Law, you must have a license/permit to carry (issued by that State) in order to carry within 1000 feet of a school. CA has passed a similar law, so theoretically, you might be charged as violating both laws.

It appears that San Diego has caught on to the fact that this case has a much larger scope/magnitude than just S.D. County alone:

Quote:
This case is an indirect effort to change California‘s statutory limitations on the public carry of loaded firearms by attacking the concealed carry licensing policy of a single county sheriff. Appellants‘ argument is, at its a core, a challenge to Penal Code section 12031 rather than this Sheriff‘s administration of concealed carry licensing.
Well, Doh!

The County then spends a few pages painting a spectacular picture of their licensing scheme and how fair it is.

They then spend a few more pages explaining how the scope of the right does not include anything outside of the home...

And even if it did, CA has provided for alternative methods of carry that are completely fair and do not substantially burden (Thank you, Nordyke panel) the right.

Moving on.

They contend that the Sheriffs' practices meet any standard of scrutiny. They then say that (are you sitting comfortably?):

Quote:
Intermediate Scrutiny is Applied When Firearm Possession in The Home is Involved.
Excuse me! That flat out contradicts Heller.

followed with

Quote:
Rational Basis Review Would Be Appropriate after Nordyke.
Same old arguments. We've read them, time after time.

If you feel you must read the arguments, Michel & Associates P.C. (MAPC) has the files: http://michellawyers.com/guncasetrac...rutavsandiego/
Al Norris is offline  
Old August 14, 2011, 10:12 AM   #33
HarrySchell
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 548
Thanks, Al. Hopefully the appellees will have their contradictions inserted firmly into their nether regions.
__________________
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will.
— Mark Twain
HarrySchell is offline  
Old August 14, 2011, 01:22 PM   #34
secret_agent_man
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 25, 2011
Posts: 463
To think those guys make a living pumping out crap like that. May they all drown in tea.
secret_agent_man is offline  
Old August 23, 2011, 10:21 AM   #35
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,307
Things are moving ahead, in this case.

Two amici have filed briefs, defending the practice(s) of the San Diego County Sheriff (and CA law in general).

On the same day (8/12) that the Sheriff filed his response, the Brady's filed an amicus brief.

Then on Friday (8/19) the LCAV (Legal Community Against Violence) filed an amicus brief.

Here is what is interesting about these two briefs: There is no mention of the Ezell decision.

It's almost as if they do not see that they are setting up the 9th Circuit to intentionally split with the 7th Circuit. That is one sure method of gaining cert before the SCOTUS. With both Williams and Masciandaro before the SCOTUS, this is something they really do not want to do - but here they are, doing it anyway.

What I'm seeing is utter desperation in action.
Al Norris is offline  
Old August 23, 2011, 01:17 PM   #36
Hardcase
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2009
Location: Sunny Southern Idaho
Posts: 1,906
I see that the LCAV is also sticking to the "in the home" interpretation of Heller and McDonald.
__________________
Well we don't rent pigs and I figure it's better to say it right out front because a man that does like to rent pigs is... he's hard to stop - Gus McCrae
Hardcase is offline  
Old August 23, 2011, 03:20 PM   #37
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,077
I love when our opponents put all their eggs in a basket that has a gaping hole in the bottom. There will be egg on their shoes in due course.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old August 27, 2011, 02:51 AM   #38
Eghad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 28, 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,231
The defendants are doing an excellent job of giving this case legs to get to a higher juducial level of review. Keep up the good work.
__________________
Have a nice day at the range

NRA Life Member
Eghad is offline  
Old August 27, 2011, 02:52 PM   #39
HarrySchell
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 548
Quote:
The defendants are doing an excellent job of giving this case legs to get to a higher juducial level of review. Keep up the good work.
Heh. Shhh. Never interrupt an enemy in the midst of making a mistake....
__________________
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will.
— Mark Twain
HarrySchell is offline  
Old September 7, 2011, 08:50 AM   #40
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,307
Peruta's reply brief was due yesterday, Sept. 6th. It must have been posted late at night, as it wasn't there by the time I called it a night.

It's available now, however and I have attached it to this post.

Chuck Michel attacks and destroys everything the County has implied, ignored and generally misconstrued. The brief even goes so far as to wonder how the Nordyke panel could have gotten its decision so wrong, when the weight of Heller and McDonald were against it.

All in all, a good read.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Peruta CA9 Appellant Reply Brief 2011_09_06.pdf (184.8 KB, 33 views)
Al Norris is offline  
Old September 7, 2011, 11:01 AM   #41
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,297
I didn't have time to read the entire brief, but the early parts I read were excellent.

Like shooting fish in a barrel.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old October 20, 2011, 11:56 PM   #42
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,307
Interesting developments in the Peruta 9th Circuit appeals case.

Former SG Paul Clement was substituted into Peruta, yesterday. Today he filed a letter on the impact of A.B. 144 on the impact of the district courts ruling.

This is the NRA playing the BIG GUNS, on a case that will impact carry laws outside of CA, if the 9th gets it wrong.
Al Norris is offline  
Old October 21, 2011, 10:01 PM   #43
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,186
Quote:
This is the NRA playing the BIG GUNS, on a case that will impact carry laws outside of CA, if the 9th gets it wrong.
AB 144 is now the 800lb gorilla in the china shop. If the 9th sticks with their guns, we get a chance to appeal.

On the other hand, if they give ground, we've got ourselves a possible circuit split.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old October 21, 2011, 10:08 PM   #44
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,307
By putting Paul Clement on the case, the NRA has just shown the 9th Circuit where they expect this case to go, regardless of the outcome.
Al Norris is offline  
Old June 1, 2012, 08:14 PM   #45
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,307
With the recent (today, June 1st) decision in Nordyke, it is prudent to show some of what is going on in other cases.

From the currently stayed Peruta case:

Quote:
6.1.2012 Appellants Peruta_Appellants’ Citation of Supplemental Authority Pursuant to Rule 28(j)

5.25.2012 Appellants Appellants’ Reply to Opposition to Motion For Relief From Stay

5.22.2012 Appellees Appellee’s Opposition to Motion For Relief From Stay

5.18.2012 Appellants Declaration of Sean A. Brady In Support of Appellants’ Motion For Relief From Stay

5.18.2012 Appellants Appellants’ Motion For Relief From Stay

4.19.2012 Appellants Appellants’ Citation of Supplemental Authority_Pursuant to Rule 28(j) Re: Bateman v. Perdue

4.5.2012 Non-Party/Amici Friend of the Court letter from Attorney Allan J. Mayer
This latest supplemental citation, is the Nordyke decision. Attention should also be given to the amici letter from attorney Allan Mayer, who is requesting to be permitted to supply a "Brandeis" brief.

You may view this table and the briefs, here: http://michellawyers.com/guncasetrac...rutavsandiego/
Al Norris is offline  
Old June 4, 2012, 02:24 PM   #46
Gary L. Griffiths
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: On The Road, somewhere in the good ol' US of A.
Posts: 1,213
Quote:
Attention should also be given to the amici letter from attorney Allan Mayer, who is requesting to be permitted to supply a "Brandeis" brief.
I am paying attention to it. I hope that this is a first rough draft, because I can't see a competent attorney submitting a letter for judicial consideration containing pen-and-ink corrections, misspelling the name of a US Supreme Court Justice, and citing Wikipedia as a source for reliable information.

Color me
__________________
Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own personal safety; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths, Chief Instructor, Advanced Force Tactics, Inc. (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill)
Gary L. Griffiths is offline  
Old June 5, 2012, 08:05 AM   #47
Armorer-at-Law
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 29, 2002
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 368
Quote:
I hope that this is a first rough draft, because I can't see a competent attorney submitting a letter for judicial consideration containing pen-and-ink corrections, misspelling the name of a US Supreme Court Justice, and citing Wikipedia as a source for reliable information.
No kidding!!!
__________________
Send lawyers, guns, and money...
Armorer-at-Law.com
07FFL/02SOT
Armorer-at-Law is offline  
Old August 1, 2012, 11:39 PM   #48
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,307
I'm sure that everybody has wondered about all the carry cases, now at the 9th circuit?

The Peruta attorneys are noticing the court of all the cases that are somewhat related and are suggesting that all but Peruta and Richards be stayed. They are suggesting that a decision in these two cases will make or break the other cases.

Appellants’ Notice of Additional Related Cases and Status Therof
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old December 5, 2012, 04:40 PM   #49
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,307
Like Richards, The defendants filed a 28J letter on the CA2 Kachalsky case. Here is Paul Clement's 28J reply.

Orals for this and the other 2 cases (Richards and Baker) will be heard tomorrow.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf CA9-Peruta.CalGuns28j.pdf (283.3 KB, 16 views)
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old December 6, 2012, 12:46 PM   #50
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,650
SAF is currentl tweeting the oral arguments live on @2AFDN.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.16375 seconds with 10 queries