Peruta v. San Diego

Status
Not open for further replies.
I thought that even if Gore began issuing tomorrow, it would be because of the majority opinion in the 9th, make Peruta the law within the jurisdiction of the 9th and end all the appeals for intervention and en banc as a matter of course.

If he says he will not observe Peruta unless mandated (which is what he is doing), then Harris could be allowed to intervene and/or en banc occur. I guess he will go down this path. He has nothing to lose and might see the panel reversed.

His decision was to quit, not to change his policy.
 
From what I understand, it doesn't have to make sense. It just has to follow rules. If Gore issues, then it may be moot, whether it's because of the verdict or not, because everyone is getting their permits regardless of the reason, and nobody (in Gore's county) has standing to complain. Since Gore isn't keeping Peruta from getting his permit (hypothetically, for the purposes of this discussion) Peruta the person can't complain Gore won't issue him a permit for self defense, therefore Peruta the case is moot. Very avante garde chicken or egg stuff.
 
HarrySchell said:
I thought that even if Gore began issuing tomorrow, it would be because of the majority opinion in the 9th, make Peruta the law within the jurisdiction of the 9th and end all the appeals for intervention and en banc as a matter of course.
Click to expand...

Peruta is already good law, Gore has nothing to do with that.
 
Jimdaddy Gore is stopping everyone including Peruta from getting there ccw if they only use self defense as there good cause . I'm not sure of your point . My letter clearly states he has put the app on hold . Maybe you have other info on the plaintiff . Has Peruta been issued a ccw ??

Let's take it one step more . Let say Gore starts issuing ccw to anyone who ask and the ruling becomes moot . The fact the ruling becomes moot , is good cause still legal in other county's ? Could LA or SF still require good cause to cc because the case became moot . How about one year from now Gore starts using good cause again . What happens then ? Would he be in contempt or would this whole thing have to start over ?
 
Last edited:
metalgod said:
Let's take it one step more . Let say Gore starts issuing ccw to anyone who ask and the ruling becomes moot . The fact the ruling becomes moot , is good cause still legal in other county's ? Could LA or SF still require good cause to cc because the case became moot . How about one year from now Gore starts using good cause again . What happens then ? Would he be in contempt or would this whole thing have to start over ?
Click to expand...

Even if Gore had been issuing this entire time, the ruling would not be or become moot -- just the case. It's already good law.

It's not final, and there is a stay on the ruling, so compliance with the ruling is not mandatory. If the ruling survives the current process, it will then be final, and compliance will no longer be optional -- it will be the law, and any sheriff that disobeys will get his / her arse kicked in court, whether in a day, a month, or a year.
 
Well I'm more confused then ever . If the ruling is good and there just waiting for en-banc . Why are they asking him any questions ? Gore is really no longer part of the case because he failed to ask for appeal in time . What does moot matter either if the ruling is binding regardless of mootness . This does not make sense to me . It did till you answered .
 
Here is part of the letter from Gore

Your application has been reviewed and does not meet the current requirements for " good cause " under CA state law .
Click to expand...

I thought it was up to the local sheriff to determine good cause and he can choose what good cause is . The letter seems to say the state has requirements he must follow in order to issue a CCW . Is this right ? The state has strict guide lines to follow ?????
 
Last edited:
The letter is full of crap, at least the part you mention.

Once Peruta is in force (IF...), the letter will still be crap, as the law won't have changed and the entity forcing him to change his policy will be the 9th Circuit, not the state.

They're asking Gore questions because they need to determine if the case is moot. They need to determine if the case is moot because a document filed with the court suggested it was. This is important to the court because if the case is moot, they can stop spending time on the case, and move on.
 
This is the full letter minus my name and what not .

44xk.jpg
 
Last edited:
Under California state law, beyond the existence of 'good cause', there are no requirements.

The whole point of Peruta is that Gore was exercising his discretion on what he would accept for 'good cause' to the effect of denying the right.

The letter is a misleading formulation - quite deliberately so, IMO.
 
There seems to be agreement that the original panel on Peruta has the decision whether to allow Harris to intervene and to dispose/approve the motions for en banc from Harris and others.

I think there are solid reasons the panel can tell Harris to go fly, whatever the plaintiffs said or didn't. If they turn Harris down, her plea for en banc (and the other) craters.

While the nominal period for another judge on the 9th to call for sua sponte en banc has passed, the stay probably means sua sponte is still on the table. Nobody has called for it, either hoping not to have to or procedurally bound to let the motions expire. I dunno.

The majority opinion's destruction of the other circuits' treatment of may issue presents a problem for an en banc panel, as those rationales would be the path to overturning the current ruling. The level of buffoonery required to overturn the ruling would be very high in the annals of the art, and perhaps intolerably so for SCOTUS. Another difference in Peruta is how citizens of like circumstances in the same state are treated unequally at law by caprice, a major difference from Drake.

A zip code sort in Lost Angles County of where permits are laid over where crime occurs would be an interesting bit of evidence to indict the establishment there. Saw one from 2005 and the concentrations were diametrically opposed.

I think O'Scannilon (sp) is going to ride this puppy all the way. He might lose, but it won't be for not doing his homework, thinking hard or sparing the feelings of his peers.

I will wager a beer that Harris loses, the motions denied. I dunno about sua sponte. If en banc happens and we lose, I guess SCOTUS may be more inclined to take it for the soft slow ball being tossed to them. Another chance to whack the 9th.

Gore has to reply by 15 May, maybe two weeks after the panel will announce decisions of the motions....sua sponte will have to come reasonably quickly after that.
 
The level of buffoonery required to overturn the ruling would be very high in the annals of the art, and perhaps intolerably so for SCOTUS.
Click to expand...
Harry, I thought the same thing. May we never find out. But a more popcorn – worthy undertaking, I cannot imagine.
 
I will wager a beer that Harris loses, the motions denied.
Click to expand...

I think it depends on whether they think En Banc would be denied or if granted, the decision upheld, and then on whether they want Harris to apply for Cert. That does appear to be the only way to get this issue before them, is a government appeal. I wonder if they'd have even heard Heller at this point if it hadn't been DC challenging.
 
Gore's lawyers have responded:

http://www.jonbirdt.com/images/Document.pdf

Re: Response to Court’s Order of May 1, 2014
Edward Peruta, et al. v. County of San Diego, et al.; Court of Appeals No. 10-56971

Dear Ms. Dwyer:

The Court has requested the position of Appellee William Gore on the pending motions to intervene and a response to the suggestion that this case is moot. Appellee responds as follows:

Motions to Intervene.

Appellee believes that the Attorney General is the appropriate intervenor in this case because the panel opinion finds California’s legislative scheme regarding the carrying of handguns unconstitutional. Appellee requests that the Court grant the Attorney General’s Motion to Intervene. Appellee takes no position on other intervenors.

Mootness.

This case is not moot. Appellee has not changed his policy or procedures for the issuance of concealed carry licenses. All current applications that do not meet the existing policy are being held without action, pending final direction from the Court or the Legislature.

Very truly yours,
THOMAS E. MONTGOMERY, County Counsel

By/s/James M. Chapin
JAMES M. CHAPIN, Senior Deputy
Attorneys for Defendant/Appellee William D. Gore
Click to expand...
 
Eh, Gore's support for Harris is off-base, as the panel specifically declared his caprice with regard to a fundamental right to be the problem, and clarified "good cause" to include "self-defense" as contemplated under 2A.

On the flip side, if Gore is right, then where are the lawsuits Harris should have filed against other CA entities that accept "self-defense"? What did Harris know and when about those unconstitutional breaches of state law? She can't claim not to know.

Harris has no standing, by her own admission, in various venues and other times, including this one. Now she does, because a bird of the same feather lost? Typical of the type not to see any irony in this.

The prayer for the Legislature to undo Gore's loss by writing new law requires the Legislature to deny "bear" as a fundamental right. That's going to be a little difficult now that the court says it is, and Guam says it is, and the CA district court (Birdt) says it is, and Heller, and many entities within CA say it is or accepted Peruta before it was decided, in some cases.

Predictions are difficult, especially when they involve the future (N. Bohr).

I think O'Scannilain (sp) is ready to fight and the motions will be dealt with a lot sooner than later. The Gore response appears factually wrong, sheds no new light, and should have taken a day at most to provide.

I'll wager the motions are denied, and (with less assurance) that if a judge on the 9th calls for en banc, the attempt will fail.

Harris might appeal to SCOTUS on her denial or for cert, but she has no standing. Consistent with the Prop 8 decision, SCOTUS should throw it out.

Then again, the 9th has a reputation for buffoonery to uphold, and this is about politics, not law.
 
The sheriff again mischaracterizes the panel's decision. It is not the legislative scheme that the panel struck, but the issuance policy IN LIGHT of the legislative scheme. It will take the panel exactly one second to see through this.
 
I am no legal expert, nor legal scholar, but based on the idiotic antics of California legislators that I have seen, I could see them writing such a bill in full view of the 9th Circuit, just to make some sort of a point.
 
OK I just had a thought , (Yeah I thought I smelled something burning too)

I would think it would be impossible for any court to say the right to carry for self defense is not a good enough reason/cause . If they were to say self defense was not a good enough reason/cause . How does that not reverse the right to carry open or concealed period . Even if you have great reason/cause to carry , that does not change the fact the underlined reason your carrying is for self defense . If you can not carry for self defense there is no reason to carry at all regardless of how good your reason/cause is . Seems like simple math to me . Therefore how can any court say self defence is not good cause ? That to me would make for the starting of revoking all CCWs regardless of cause . It would set presedent for the federal gov to make carrying a firearm in any way illegal .
 
And that is exactly what New Jersey got with that recent ruling in District Court, that their restrictions against carry are Constitutional and right, and self defense is NOT a good reason.
The conflicting rulings are coming in at high speed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top