Thread: Suing California?
Hello, I was wondering if anyone has thought about suing the state of California in the wake of Peruta v. San Diego and others affirming RKBA in CA. Nevadans are often non-residents with business and pleasure in CA and could seemingly make a case that we are denied RKBA during our trips. Is there any federal case law permitting states to deny non-resident CCWs? Would there be foreseeable 11th Amendment issues if this is filed in federal court in Nevada?
Thanks for the link. I noticed that's a country sheriff being sued though. The Sheriff's powers are enumerated by state law, so I can see why that would have been the outcome, which is why I think sung the state would be more appropriate.
If TRUMP 2016 loses then I will shrug off my WHITE MAN'S BURDEN and leave the world to the Dindus and Done Nuffins. Read and understand Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged as a prescription for the future. TRUMP 2016
I would not spend a wooden nickel on CA...or go there either. Reno is a nice place, in my view, far better than just about any CA town. You can enjoy the Lake and ski without ever going into the PDRC...ever!
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare
While apparently some sheriff's have already denied non-residents, I wonder if one might do it. Probably not, but might be interesting to see.
Licenses to openly carry handguns are restricted to the county of issuance and the county must have a population of fewer than 200,000 people.
See California Penal Code sections 26150 & 26155.
Right, I understand the Penal Codes would prohibit it, but the whole point of Peruta was that it was unconstitutional not to issue permits. Thus I wonder if there might be a Sheriff willing to consider the penal codes invalidated by Peruta. I know, the chance is probably about zero. But one can dream.
Last edited by Felid`Maximus; 02-23-2015 at 02:55 PM.
I just spoke with Sheriff Hagwood of Plumas County, CA. He's a very nice guy. He expressed interest in processing a CCW request for me and other non-residents, but naturally he had reservations about going against California Penal Code requiring residency. I explained that I can't sue the state for a 2A violation as a non-resident, and he said he would look into what he could do and call me within a couple days.
Let us know what the Sheriff says. Keep in mind that Sheriff's can't write their own laws or issue their own carry permits, the California Constitution forbids it. Any permit the Sheriff were to issue you would be invalid throughout the state and carrying an unregistered, unlicensed handgun concealed in California can result in a felony conviction resulting in the loss of your Second Amendment rights altogether.
There is an old adage: "In everything you do be perfectly white or perfectly black, else you find yourself wearing prison gray."
Trying to game California's gun control laws is a sure way to go directly to jail.
And agree with your other comments regarding screwing with Cali... UOC turned out exactly as I figured, find one loophole and the state will rush to close it. But at least it opened the door to Pertua
Since the district court relied on Peruta to rule against my Open Carry lawsuit, the validity of the Peruta decision is directly called into question by my appeal. Given the makeup of the 9th Circuit judges, and given that the attorney general is a defendant in my lawsuit, I really don't see the Peruta decision surviving an en banc review of my appeal.
But as I have already said, the question you posited has already been answered by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. Ed Peruta won't be getting a CCW even if the mandate in the Peruta case is issued unless Sheriff Gore decides to issue him one illegally. The only thing decided by the Peruta court, according to the Peruta court, is that the CCW policy was unconstitutional for not recognizing self-defense as "good cause." If one wants a CCW from a Sheriff in California then he must either be a resident of the county or spend a substantial amount of time in the county on business.
And the last time I checked, to claim otherwise on the CCW application is a felony.
The recent Mance v. Holder case has changed things a little. It was a case based on "intent" Meaning the plaintiffs did not get arrested, or suffer the usual harm involved in civil cases. That being said a "intent" case could fly. I received a phone call, a couple days ago from a Sacramento based attorney who knows I set up lawsuits. He is looking for Nevada based clients who travel to California, plan on moving there, or are otherwise involved in California (Child visitation?) He has a track record of suing for gun rights, and has had some success. If you are interested in a conference call PM me and I will set one up.
"It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip
These concealed carry cases have done nothing but result in bad case law in every Federal circuit which includes the 9th Circuit Peruta decision, more so should it ever become final.
""In Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the "natural right of self-defence" and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right...Likewise, in State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann. 489, 490 (1850), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that citizens had 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 (2008) at 2809
We already have enough cowards, criminals and unmanly men carrying concealed weapons in this state.
Look, OC/CC, we're all on the same side, except when this attitude comes up. Any form of carry should be permissible anywhere in the union, period. In CA's case, some form of carry needs to be allowed NOW. Nitpicking court decisions because it doesn't favor your position doesn't get the right of self-defense with firearms anywhere in CA. If Peruta is upheld, I could move back. As much as I'd like to OC in California, I'd be happy if I could carry there without becoming a felon. Want a court decision in our favor? "'...shall not be infringed.' means exactly what it says and restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms shall be kept to the absolute minimum." Until America removes the tyrannical power of the judicial system, we cannot fully have the rights our founders intended.
I OC'd this morning, then CC'd when I switched jackets I was wearing. I guess I don't fit anyone's paradigm of either method of carry.
I don't want to get into the realm of personal attacks, so I'll just leave it as, 'There's lots of information available about him, and his small cadre, on the internet'
Richards v. Prieto, in which its attorney Alan Gura argued that California can ban Open Carry.
I remarked in the past how curious it is that this site provides a forum for so many opponents of the Second Amendment right to Open Carry.
Your beloved Peruta decision was just cited by a district court to uphold California's roster listing which handguns can be legally sold in the State of California. The Peruta decision, if allowed to stand, can be cited to knock down every Second Amendment challenge in the 9th Circuit. And yet you and your fellow CalGuns/SAF/NRA/CRPA/GOA/GOC/ members applaud the decision?
FYI, There is not now, and never has been a right to concealed carry. Not under the Second Amendment and not under common law:
“If, after an interchange of blows on equal terms, one of the parties, on a sudden, and without any such intention at the commencement of the affray, snatches up a deadly weapon and kills the other party with it, such killing will be only manslaughter. But if a party, under colour of fighting upon equal terms, uses from the beginning of the contest a deadly weapon without the knowledge of the other party, and kills the other party with such weapon; or if, at the beginning of the contest he prepares a deadly weapon, so as to have the power of using it in some part of the contest, and uses it accordingly in the course of the combat, and kills the other party with the weapon; the killing in both these cases will be murder.” Whiteley’s case, 1 Lewin 173 (1829) – Wharton, Francis (1855) A Treatise on the Law of Homicide in the United States, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Kay & Brother
I never said I was involved in any lawsuit. That was assumed by the guy from CA. I saw a poster in this thread, looking to start a lawsuit of some form, and had been chatting on the phone with an attorney friend of mine who is interested in making a difference. I saw an opportunity to hook up interested party's.
So to the dude from california.... If you know so much about lawsuits and rights and such, why are you not interested in working with the guy who is interested in working with you? You judged me, and passed judgement on the work that has yet to be done before the party's have even met.
I certainly hope that your law cases are thought out more than your pre-judgemental posts are. You have no facts, yet you bash? Sad day for open carry! how divisive.