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?

rickyray9 said:

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?

Click to expand...

Couples of cases have been tried and denied. Try this one: http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=1568

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.

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!

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.

Felid`Maximus said:

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.

Click to expand...

Only 90 day licenses are (theoretically available) to non-residents and then only if "the applicant's principal place of employment or business is in the county or a city within the county and the applicant spends a substantial period of time in that place of employment or business."

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.

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.

rickyray9 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Actually, you can sue the state for a Second Amendment violation as a non-resident. You sue a relevant state official in his official capacity. In California, County Sheriff's are considered to be "state officials." It would be foolish to sue for a permit to carry a weapon concealed as we all know that there is no right to carry a concealed weapon.

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.

California Right To Carry said:

Only 90 day licenses are (theoretically available) to non-residents and then only if "the applicant's principal place of employment or business is in the county or a city within the county and the applicant spends a substantial period of time in that place of employment or business."

Click to expand...

The only time I ever heard that authority use to issue was to the security guards of a group of Israeli scientists and engineers working at a Navy base.

garand_guy said:

The only time I ever heard that authority use to issue was to the security guards of a group of Israeli scientists and engineers working at a Navy base.

Click to expand...

Do you have a link? Security guards aren't licensed via the CCW statutes and it is relatively easy for security guards to get a license to openly carry loaded firearms. Also, California CCWs and guard cards do not entitle one to carry on a military base. That is solely up to the discretion of the base commander.

California Right To Carry said:

Do you have a link? Security guards aren't licensed via the CCW statutes and it is relatively easy for security guards to get a license to openly carry loaded firearms. Also, California CCWs and guard cards do not entitle one to carry on a military base. That is solely up to the discretion of the base commander.

Click to expand...

Personal knowledge. FWIW, Sheriff Brooks in Ventura County. These guys were all hardcore Israeli guys, rumored to be ex-Mossad. They were on visas, non-diplomatic.

California Right To Carry said:

It would be foolish to sue for a permit to carry a weapon concealed as we all know that there is no right to carry a concealed weapon.

Click to expand...

But there is a right to carry explained in the recent Pertua case as well as the case that knocked out Illinois prohibition on CCW permits. I wonder if a Nevada citizen were to apply for and be denied a CCW, then apply for and be denied the OC permit, if that would be sufficient to bring suit that California denied a U.S. citizen their 2nd Amendment rights? Eventually, someone needs to figure out how to breech the idea that a state cannot summarily deny it's citizens carry rights but then turn around and deny them to citizens of the other 49 United States.

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

jfrey123 said:

But there is a right to carry explained in the recent Pertua case as well as the case that knocked out Illinois prohibition on CCW permits. I wonder if a Nevada citizen were to apply for and be denied a CCW, then apply for and be denied the OC permit, if that would be sufficient to bring suit that California denied a U.S. citizen their 2nd Amendment rights? Eventually, someone needs to figure out how to breech the idea that a state cannot summarily deny it's citizens carry rights but then turn around and deny them to citizens of the other 49 United States.

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

Click to expand...

I would not put the 9th Circuit Peruta decision and the 7th Circuit Moore decision on the same level. In striking down bans on both Open Carry and concealed carry the 7th Circuit said that Illinois could ban concealed carry as per the Heller decision. In deciding that self-defense constitutes "good cause" the 9th Circuit in Peruta said that when the US Supreme Court and nearly 200 years of prior precedents said that Open Carry is the right guaranteed by the Constitution and that concealed carry can be banned, what they really meant to say is that Open Carry can be banned.

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.

DON`T TREAD ON ME said:

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.

Click to expand...

Why are you at an Open Carry website seeking others to join you in a concealed carry lawsuit?

California Right To Carry said:

Why are you at an Open Carry website seeking others to join you in a concealed carry lawsuit?

Click to expand...

Well, to be fair, he is also a long-time, respected, open carrier and member here, posting information of common interest to many of us here in the Nevada forum.

California Right To Carry said:

Why are you at an Open Carry website seeking others to join you in a concealed carry lawsuit?

Click to expand...

He's in Nevada and on a Nevada page, looking for other Nevadans to help him rescue your benighted state (because you folks over there seem unable to do so from within), and you have a PROBLEM with this???

DVC said:

He's in Nevada and on a Nevada page, looking for other Nevadans to help him rescue your benighted state (because you folks over there seem unable to do so from within), and you have a PROBLEM with this???

Click to expand...

I have a problem with concealed carry as does the US Supreme Court as well as state courts which have upheld prohibitions on concealed carry going back 200 years. There are a dozen California concealed carry cases already pending before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals or are in the end stage of the district court proceedings and will soon be on appeal.

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.

California Right To Carry said:

We already have enough cowards, criminals and unmanly men carrying concealed weapons in this state.

Click to expand...

Usually it's the CC guys that show this kind of animus. The attitude of 'OC is stupid...' is the CC version of this statement.

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.