California Right To Carry
Regular Member
There was a line in the Peruta v. San Diego opinion which the opponents of Open Carry hailed at the time which has now turned around to bite them in the ass.
"To put it simply, concealed carry per se does not fall outside the scope of the right to bear arms; but insistence upon a particular mode of carry does." Peruta v. County of San Diego, 742 F. 3d 1144 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit (2014) at 1172-1173.
In the SAF/CalGuns challenge to California's handgun roster the court had this to say:
"The court finds plaintiffs’ “nsistence upon...particular” handguns to “fall outside the scope of the right to bear arms.” Peruta, 742 F.3d at 1172..The court also rejects plaintiffs’ contention that “particular unrostered handguns are constitutionally-protected [sic]”...The Second Amendment does not protect guns, but rather conduct." Pena v. Lindley No. 2:09-CV-01185-KJM-CKD (E.D. California Feb. 25, 2015) ORDER. pg 22.
Alan Gura now finds himself in a Catch-22 situation. His concealed carry 9th Circuit lawsuit, Richards v. Prieto, was entirely dependent upon the Peruta decision. On appeal, Gura must now argue that Peruta was wrong. :lol:
The Peruta (and now Pena) "insistence upon" framework is something the Peruta Court made up out of thin air and, were it allowed to stand, could be used to derail every Second Amendment lawsuit (in reality, any civil rights lawsuit) because every Federal civil rights lawsuit must "insist upon" some sort of relief to satisfy the Case or Controversy requirement for Article III standing.
Under the Peruta framework, the State of California could ban the Bible and a person could not challenge the ban because of his "insistence upon" reading a particular book.
Nonetheless, the Kool-Aid drinkers will continue to praise the Peruta decision, whereas my Open Carry lawsuit, thanks to District Court Judge S. James Otero, directly challenges the Peruta decision.
"To put it simply, concealed carry per se does not fall outside the scope of the right to bear arms; but insistence upon a particular mode of carry does." Peruta v. County of San Diego, 742 F. 3d 1144 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit (2014) at 1172-1173.
In the SAF/CalGuns challenge to California's handgun roster the court had this to say:
"The court finds plaintiffs’ “nsistence upon...particular” handguns to “fall outside the scope of the right to bear arms.” Peruta, 742 F.3d at 1172..The court also rejects plaintiffs’ contention that “particular unrostered handguns are constitutionally-protected [sic]”...The Second Amendment does not protect guns, but rather conduct." Pena v. Lindley No. 2:09-CV-01185-KJM-CKD (E.D. California Feb. 25, 2015) ORDER. pg 22.
Alan Gura now finds himself in a Catch-22 situation. His concealed carry 9th Circuit lawsuit, Richards v. Prieto, was entirely dependent upon the Peruta decision. On appeal, Gura must now argue that Peruta was wrong. :lol:
The Peruta (and now Pena) "insistence upon" framework is something the Peruta Court made up out of thin air and, were it allowed to stand, could be used to derail every Second Amendment lawsuit (in reality, any civil rights lawsuit) because every Federal civil rights lawsuit must "insist upon" some sort of relief to satisfy the Case or Controversy requirement for Article III standing.
Under the Peruta framework, the State of California could ban the Bible and a person could not challenge the ban because of his "insistence upon" reading a particular book.
Nonetheless, the Kool-Aid drinkers will continue to praise the Peruta decision, whereas my Open Carry lawsuit, thanks to District Court Judge S. James Otero, directly challenges the Peruta decision.