Peruta v. San Diego

Status
Not open for further replies.
If that's the case is there not a good case that LEOs should NOT carry either . The only reason they carry is for self defense . As much as LEOs don't like it they are civilians just like the rest of us . They have no special status like military . The 2nd amendment does not seem to differentiate between LEO and the average Joe therefore all carry laws should apply equally .

Yes I know , I'm just wondering if all federal courts were to say self defence is not a good cause . Is there a legal arguement that LEOS should not carry either ?
 
Therefore how can any court say self defence is not good cause ?
Click to expand...
Well we've all (on both sides) gotten a little lazy in our language. Self Defense IS the ONLY Good Cause. However, in these areas rulings have gone against us, you need to articulate a SPECIFIC cause to need this self-defense.

Where these rulings have gone against us, you have to be able to say I need to defend myself against So and So, or that I carry Such and Such around all the time and EVERYBODY wants it.
 
jimdandy said:
Self Defense IS the ONLY Good Cause.
Click to expand...
As long as we are tightening up the verbiage, we might specify that the the right in one of lawful defense of self or another. Self-defense is a handy little phrase to describe the right, but it's too narrow.
 
I'm not sure you can ( at least in the good cause states ) even use the term "or another" when speaking of CCW or open carry . If one of the reasons they will issue is if you often have large sums of money on your person . They did not issue you the permit to walk your buddy to the bank it is for your self defense .

Lets take it one crazy step forward . They will issue a CCW if you carry large sums of money but you can not use deadly force to defend your money .:confused: Why does the amount of money matter . Woman often wear jewelry that cost much more then the arbitrary amount they put on the money that gets you a CCW . How is it that someone that nobody knows has a large sum of money on them gets a CCW but the girl that has a 6k ring and a 10k neckless hanging in plain sight can not ? How is it that the girl with all the BLING is less likely to be robbed then the guy nobody knows has any money on them ? It can't be because she has a choice not to be a target by not wearing the jewelry . The store owner or anyone else has the choice to have there money picked up by brinks to transport there cash to the bank . They are putting them selves in that bad situation .
 
Last edited:
Don't be silly. People who carry large sums of money can make large political contributions; (or their bosses can) don't want to tic them off. The rest of us aren't worth spit.
 
If anyone knows... what is the status of Peruta now? Has the period for en banc challenge passed, does Harris (AG) have standing, is it being appealed to SCOTUS?

It just seemed to go away...

Dan
 
No discernible action so far.

Bets range from the panel taking a very careful approach to the 9th taking the same approach as the DC Circuit and burying the case, since the "progressives" couldn't win in court.

The longer we go the more I think someone up there is trying to delay things as long as possible. The issues before the panel, allowing Harris to intervene and whether/not then to grant her plea for en banc, just aren't that complex (to this non-lawyer and some others smarter than me).

Unless a way is found to bury it, however, I think the chances are even or better it will stand, or go to SCOTUS. The majority opinion is way too well researched and reasoned to trifle with.
 
What's going on now? Nothing filed for 4 months, and we are now 7 months past the ruling? No en banc is scheduled that I know of...

Something must be happening right? Either that or Peruta has his CHL...
 
I have a sneaking suspicion that perhaps the panel is holding its decision(s) until after the November elections, given the political impact of its rulings.
 
Peruta Cited Again. Morris v. Corps of Engineers

From Morris v. Army Corps Engineers (D. Idaho Oct. 10, 2014):

"Plaintiffs challenge regulations promulgated by the Army Corp of Engineers that govern the possession of firearms on property administered by the Corps. Plaintiffs argue that the regulations violate their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms...

The Second Amendment protects the right to carry a firearm for self-defense purposes. That right extends outside the home. Peruta, 742 F.3d at 1166 (holding that “the right to bear arms includes the right to carry an operable firearm outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense”).

The Corps’ regulation bans carrying a loaded firearm for the purpose of selfdefense. It also bans carrying an unloaded firearm along with its ammunition. At most, it would allow a person to carry an unloaded firearm so long as he was not also carrying its ammunition. An unloaded firearm is useless for self-defense purposes without its ammunition..."

Next stop is the 9th Circuit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/v...eers-property/
 
So "may-issue" is now "shall issue" in all states served by the 9th circuit?
Click to expand...
Not quite; if there is a 'good cause' requirement, 'self defense' must be accepted.

If there won't be en banc, then the original ruling stands, right?
Click to expand...
Until those inventive folks come up with something else, yes.
 
We don't yet know for sure if the Peruta case itself can be now taken up en banc by one of the judges; we suspect so.

In the related Richards case in Yolo County the sheriff is saying he's going to ask for en banc. Hawaii probably will too in Baker. This ain't over...what has just happened today seems to mark the end of a long delay and things might now move faster.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top