Richards v. Prieto appealed to 9th Circuit

deadcoyote said:
Although I reside in dirty old CA I must give a kind word here to our fine Sheriff in Humboldt County. CCW was even one of the main topics between the candidates for Sheriff in the election last year, and our electorate was clear enough that both candidates strongly and publicly stated they would continue Sheriff Phelps' policy of issue to anyone with a clear criminal record. Thus far it's going great as usual.
Click to expand...

Very glad to hear that this is going on in CA. You just never know, that could end up being the kind of thing that will finally wear away the resistance to CC in the rest of the state.

motorhead0922 said:
Is a CA CCW permit good throughout the state?

I.e. a permit obtained in Humboldt County must be honored in an anti-gun county?

Thanks
Click to expand...

When I moved away from CA in 2006, the answer was "yes." Since then I haven't heard anything to indicate it has changed. What I have seen, however, is a map which shows there are a LOT more such sheriff's in the outlying counties who are issuing more and more CC permits on a "shall issue" basis. Warmed my heart, to be sure. I really do like CA and it's good to see this kind of thing happening.

Carry on the good work!

--Wag--
 
You can add Orange County to the "enlightened" when it comes to issuing carry licenses. The lady who replaced Carona is a protege of Lee Baca, who runs LA County SD and who is definitely anti-citizen...only criminals and cops should carry. The rest of us are too squirrely or something.

She started out to reverse Carona's CCW policies but rapidly got the message that those policies were not what got him into trouble. If she didn't want to go ask Baca for a job after the next election, she better refine her "attitude". She likes wearing four stars so she did.
 
Some good statistics in the NRA brief. Hopefully the court won't see NRA on the cover sheet and throw it out the window before actually reading it.
 
The Appellees (defendants) filed their response yesterday.

The overall theme was that if the court should decide in favor of the Appellants (plaintiffs), then CA would return to the days of Tombstone and Dodge City. Lots of very inaccurate (read Hollywood) history in this brief.

Those of you that know your history should get a kick out of this.

Consider this from page 10 of the PDF:

As California purportedly bars the open carrying of loaded pistols, Plaintiffs’ “right” to carry a concealed weapon is given a delayed and indirect constitutional birth, much as Aphrodite sprang from the sea without any identifiable parent.
Click to expand...

Alan Gura is going to have fun with this!
 

Attachments

Indeed, if speed of firing is the constitutional criterion,
then citizens must also have a right to generally have the gun cocked
and the trigger safety off, so as to save precious time. By Plaintiffs’
own definition, an uncocked gun is “inoperable” as incapable of
immediate shooting, as is one with an external safety device engaged
Click to expand...
Speed of firing is absolutely part of the constitutional criterion. I would agree with that statement and plaintiff's 'own definition', and so does the Heller decision. Remember the court said a gun must be ready for 'immediate use for self defense' in the process of invalidating the trigger-lock ordinance. Unloaded doesn't even come close to clearing the constitutional bar.

Many guns in the mainstream of common use have no external safety, unless one views a trigger mechanism as an external safety. For example, garden variety double action revolvers.

To argue that it is constitutional to require a safety be engaged on a handgun would be to argue that the carrying of the one pistol that's in the most common use by police agencies and citizens could be banned.

The uncontroverted safest way to carry a 1911 ready for defense is cocked and locked, unless one thinks lowering the hammer manually on a live round is a safe practice. Indeed, unless a 1911 is cocked, the safety cannot even be engaged.

This argument fails totally. Otherwise Glocks, 1911s, and double-action revolvers would all be found unconstitutional to carry in ready condition for self-defense.
 
There's so much amusing stuff in there... but this kills me...

Moreover, the notion that an unloaded gun is a
useless gun, such that the Second Amendment necessarily entails the
right to bear be of loaded arms, is unsupported by any facts or
common sense
Click to expand...

How exactly does one make the argument that an unloaded gun is generally useful?:eek::rolleyes:
 
How exactly does one make the argument that an unloaded gun is generally useful?
Click to expand...

Why that one is easy to answer! It makes an excellent throwing weapon with multiple points of possible contact. :confused:
 
Moreover, the notion that an unloaded gun is a
useless gun, such that the Second Amendment necessarily entails the
right to bear be of loaded arms, is unsupported by any facts or
common sense
Click to expand...
This is torture of both the English language and of logic. In reality, any suggestion that an unloaded gun is NOT useless for what the SCOTUS has determined is a fundamental right to be armed for self defense is what is unsupported by facts or common sense.

"Excuse me, Mr. Mugger, Sir, please stand by whilst I load my California-legal handgun so that I might shoot thee. Be patient, I'll only be a moment ..."
 
Moreover, the notion that an unloaded gun is a
useless gun, such that the Second Amendment necessarily entails the
right to bear be of loaded arms, is unsupported by any facts or
common sense
Click to expand...
I see. THAT explains why CA cops carry unloaded guns while on duty...they're just as effective as loaded guns! Who woulda thunk!

Is this going to become known as the "Barney Fife argument"?
 
Quote:
Moreover, the notion that an unloaded gun is a
useless gun, such that the Second Amendment necessarily entails the
right to bear be of loaded arms, is unsupported by any facts or
common sense
Click to expand...

I know some judge's law clerk who didn't read Heller very well!
 
This ought to be like shooting fish in a bucket. But at the root of opposition to carry by citizens HAS to be an underlying fundamental belief that we either don't really have the right to self-defense (which necessarily includes the means to accomplish it), or that we can't be trusted with the right.

Since they can't or won't admit that, every argument that descends from those two beliefs is going to be disingenuous, inherently flawed, lacking in logic, and will be incongruent with very simple facts:

1. Just as a car needs to be running in order to move, a gun needs to be loaded and ready for immediate use for self defense.

2. The need for self defense is inherently impossible to predict.

3. Any self defense must necessarily take place in the immediate vicinity of the person defending him or herself. That will usually be outside the home.

There is not one aspect of these simple physical realities that can't be fully understood and comprehended by the average 1st grader. But when ideology and political leanings are driving the bus, any pretense of logic or impartiality is left at the curb. There is no shame, and no honor in abusing judicial discretion to any extent to arrive at any per-determined conclusion whatsoever. It is a disgrace to the legal profession and the judiciary.

The very idea that the government should defend ITSELF from it's own constitutional restrictions is itself an outrage. It can never be in the best interest of the republic to abuse the judicial system to inflict injury on the foundation of the government, the constitution.
 
Last edited:
Today in Richards v. Prieto, Alan Gura has filed their reply to the defendants response (we've been waiting for this since they asked for an extension after the signing of AB 144).

http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/richards-v-prieto/Richards-Reply-2011-10-25.pdf

This is a terrific rebuttal in light of the passage of AB 144 - the ban on Unloaded Open Carry.

Defendants invoke figures ranging from Aphrodite to Procustes to Johnny Ringo, persistently tempting the line between clever and flip. Yet the answers to the questions posed by this litigation have always been found not in the mythology of Ancient Greece or the Wild West, but in the pages of the United States and Federal Reporter series, and California’s Penal Code. To these texts, California’s government added another since the filing of Defendants’ brief. By Defendants’ logic, this new legal text mandates reversal. Indeed, had more time remained in the briefing schedule, Plaintiffs could have moved for summary reversal.4

4 See Ninth Cir. R. 3-6(a) (summary disposition “[a]t any time prior to the completion of briefing in a civil appeal if the court determines: (a) that . . . recent legislation requires reversal or vacation of the judgment or . . . a remand for additional proceedings. . .”).
Click to expand...

This case is now on a much stronger foothold than it's "sister" case, Peruta.
 
Remembering that this case is at the 9th Circuit, awaiting a decision, last Thursday 13 Feb., both the plaintiffs and the Defendants filed opposing 28J supplemental letters.

See doc #68 and #69 at the docket: 11-16255 CA9 Docket
 
Sorry, the link is broken. goes to a Page Not Found.

What does Peruta (which I'm guessing is the subject of the 28J letter?) do to this case? Other than either make it very easy for a pro-2A judge to find for, or an anti-2A judge to drag his feet until after at least en banc is settled?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top