Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: PDF copy of Federal Complaint filed on CCW denial by San Diego Sheriff's Department

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Post imported post

    I previously posted the Summons/Cover Sheet of the complaint.

    Here is the actual Complaint




  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Stratford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    646

    Post imported post

    Give 'em hell Ed.

    It would be pleasing to have a judge determine your complaint was with merit and force the county sheriff to strike the cause and permanent residence clauses. You may wind up doing more for the good people of California than they realize.

    I'll be watching this closely.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Legend_AB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Redlands, California, USA
    Posts
    67

    Post imported post

    Good luck Ed!

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    Edward Peruta wrote:
    I previously posted the Summons/Cover Sheet of the complaint.

    Here is the actual Complaint


    I fear this is very related to http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/in...s_v._McGinness . You and your lawyer know this, right? Unless Gore lets it go to default judgement (HA!), it's probably going to be stayed pending the results of incorporation. Though I'm sure you're being told this on CGN.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Post imported post

    Lets assume for arguments sake that your are correct.

    What are the draw backs to having another case filed in Federal Court, especially in Southern California.

    I've notified Gene Hoffman at Calguns and recieved emails from him and Jason Davis on the Federal Court filing that was done on Friday.

    I rarely visit Calguns on the internet, anddon't do much posting their, so I really don't know what is being said or not said on this topic. Obviously when I get back in California Imay visit their sight more often.

    I have no desire to interfere with their cases or tell them what to do, but cannot stand by and do nothing to defend my rights.

    One of the questions posed in my complaint is whether ornot I am to be considered a resident of San Diego County for CCW purposes. This claim is not made in any other cases currently before a Federal Court in the Ninth Circuit. There is common gound in the Good Cause issue.

    The facts in my claim of residence are a definate question that needs to be answered by the courts. Another interesting question is whether or not my motor home is considered a home regardless of where it is. After all, the Heller decsion specifically addresses the second amendment in the HOME, mine just has wheels and travels from state to state, including the District of Columbia and Federal Parks.

    Calguns was well aware of my circumstances together with myplans to file a court action prior to their filing Sykes in May of 2009, and chose not to get actively involved in my issues.

    I was not, and am not, willing to wait until the United State Supreme Court rules on the Chicago case nor am I willing to sit bytwiddlingmy thumbs in anticipation of other cases being resolved.

    I decided to pursue a legal solution on day one in November of 2008 when I wasinformed that I wasNOT considered a resident of San Diego and needed to apply for my CCW in Los Angeles.

    It's gonna be what it's gonna be.

    I happen to be glad it's finally filed.



  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    Edward Peruta wrote:
    Lets assume for arguments sake that your are correct.

    What are the draw backs to having another case filed in Federal Court, especially in Southern California.

    I've notified Gene Hoffman at Calguns and recieved emails from him and Jason Davis on the Federal Court filing that was done on Friday.

    I rarely visit Calguns on the internet, anddon't do much posting their, so I really don't know what is being said or not said on this topic. Obviously when I get back in California Imay visit their sight more often.

    I have no desire to interfere with their cases or tell them what to do, but cannot stand by and do nothing to defend my rights.

    One of the questions posed in my complaint is whether ornot I am to be considered a resident of San Diego County for CCW purposes. This claim is not made in any other cases currently before a Federal Court in the Ninth Circuit. There is common gound in the Good Cause issue.

    The facts in my claim of residence are a definate question that needs to be answered by the courts. Another interesting question is whether or not my motor home is considered a home regardless of where it is. After all, the Heller decsion specifically addresses the second amendment in the HOME, mine just has wheels and travels from state to state, including the District of Columbia and Federal Parks.

    Calguns was well aware of my circumstances together with myplans to file a court action prior to their filing Sykes in May of 2009, and chose not to get actively involved in my issues.

    I was not, and am not, willing to wait until the United State Supreme Court rules on the Chicago case nor am I willing to sit bytwiddlingmy thumbs in anticipation of other cases being resolved.

    I decided to pursue a legal solution on day one in November of 2008 when I wasinformed that I wasNOT considered a resident of San Diego and needed to apply for my CCW in Los Angeles.

    It's gonna be what it's gonna be.

    I happen to be glad it's finally filed.

    Don't mean this as attack, I just hate to see money and effort wasted unnecessarily.

    As we've seen with the stay in Sykes, you may not have a choice but to sit by and twiddle your thumbs, as the court will probably stay yours too in anticipation of the other cases. Residency restrictions are a part of Sykes, but not the residency restrictions you are facing.

    I guess since the other litigation is NorCal centric, it might not make sense to bind your two cases (or whatever the term is) and stick them in a CenCal location inbetween. I wonder if Sykes went one way, and yours went another, if the fed district split would have to be decided by the 9th Circuit just as we thought the circuit splits between Chicago, NY, and CA would go to SCOTUS.

  7. #7
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660

    Post imported post

    N6ATF wrote:
    Don't mean this as attack, I just hate to see money and effort wasted unnecessarily.

    As we've seen with the stay in Sykes, you may not have a choice but to sit by and twiddle your thumbs, as the court will probably stay yours too in anticipation of the other cases. Residency restrictions are a part of Sykes, but not the residency restrictions you are facing.

    I guess since the other litigation is NorCal centric, it might not make sense to bind your two cases (or whatever the term is) and stick them in a CenCal location inbetween. I wonder if Sykes went one way, and yours went another, if the fed district split would have to be decided by the 9th Circuit just as we thought the circuit splits between Chicago, NY, and CA would go to SCOTUS.
    Take no prisoners Ed! Go get 'em! Your case has some very unique issues that I don't think other cases address.

    I don't think this is a wasted effort at all. Do justas the radical left doesall the time barrage them with so many lawsuits they will waste more time fighting them than creating new ways to limit and deny us our liberties.
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    542

    Post imported post

    "On 03/09/09, PERUTA showed, up at the license counter to submit HIS 8 HOUR BASIC
    SAFETY COURSE. He also provided a photo of a Theft Warning notice that he wanted to submit
    as proof of his need for a COW license. Since the notice is posted for the Rincon Beach Campers in
    Ventura County (not San Diego County) this document is not sufficient proof.
    One of the requirements an applicant must meet when applying for a COW license is
    to show "good cause." PERUTA listed numerous reasons for a CCW license, but did not provide any
    sufficient document(s) that would support his need. Although he was advised by licensing staff he did
    not meet the criteria for a ccw license, he insisted on submitting the CCW application for Processing.
    The "burden of proof' lies solely on the applicant to provide the necessary documents to substantiate
    his reason,(s) for a CCW license. It is his responsibility to make sure these documents are submitted to
    show “good cause” and the "need" for a CCW license. PERUTA failed to provide any of these upon
    submission of his application. I could. not locate any report(s) of past/current threats against PERUTA
    or his family.
    Therefore, based on the information revealed during the background investigation and the fact that
    PERUTA has failed to provide the necessary documents to substantiate and/or support his need for
    a CCW license, this office recommends denial of his CCW application for “good cause”."

    I read it all, glad you posted it. I feel as though the crux of the issue will not be the domicile/residence question. To me it seems quite straightforward that one could possess a multitude of residences, and a singular domicile.

    I feel as though the most difficult task in this case may be "good cause". Anyone else agree?

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Post imported post

    I have received an interesting Private Message and believe that my response to the valid questions posed need to be posted openly so everyone can attempt to understand my position and motivation for filing theFederal lawsuit.

    For the record, I have told my attorney that there are only TWO main issues that concern me.

    The first a most important issue is that EVERY issuing authority in California MUST acknowledge and accept the fact thatCalifornia CCW applicants whohave more than one RESIDENCE may submit CCW applications to any issuing authority were a residence is maintained, regardless of where they maintain a primary domicile.

    I am confident that the courts will rule in my favor on this issue.

    The second issue involvesthe manner is which JUST CAUSE is established and or decided differently from jurisdiction to jurisdiction in the State of California. The CCW application process should be UNIFORM throughout the State of California so that no CCW applicant enjoys a more liberal policy than others.

    Ibelieve thatthe courts will find, (if presented with facts), will clearly see that local politics and favoritism are the biggestfactors used to determine just cause, giving certainCCW applicants an unfair advantage over others similarly situation.

    Knowing full well that members of the Law Enforcement community monitor this message board to gather intelligence, Ioffer my thoughts and opinions under my REAL NAME.

    I am concerned with not being able to carry a loaded handgun openly or concealed for self defense purposes.

    Personally, Iwouldbe able to live with unloaded open carry if not constantly faced with being confrontedand/or threatened byharassing 12031(e) check situations that could go horrible wrong.

    I believe it is only a matter of time before someone involved in a California 12031(e) check, (whetherit's the private citizen who is carrying an unloaded handgun or a police officer involved), will soon be in the headlines.

    I cannot understand why law enforcement is forcing citizens to carry their handguns openly. That is exactly what thecurrent CCW denial situation is doing.

    I AM NOT A HANDGUN ADVOCATE,I AM A CIVIL RIGHTS ADVOCATE WHO WISHES TO PROTECT MYSELF, MY FAMILY AND MY PROPERTY WITHOUT THE FEAR OF GOVERNMENT HARASSMENT OR INTIMIDATION.

    I currently posses permits to carry and have passed state and federal criminal history records checks to obtain same inCONNECTICUT, FLORIDA and UTAH.

    I received my first formal firearms training in 1959 at the age of 10.

    I havetraining and experience with handguns from the military, law enforcement and the NRA.

    I am a certified or approved to teach firearms topics by the California Department of Justice, NRA and State of Connecticut

    I am a former trained member of law enforcement who attended and completed a training course in 1970.

    In addition to homes in CT, FL and CA, I currently have a mobile residence which very often puts me and my wife in very remote areas where there is no way to contact or summon law enforcement in an emergency.

    I am a former combat Marine who, (if no other choice exists),will not hesitate ifto useor expose my weapon to defend myself or others againstan armed assailant if I fear for my life or the life ofanother.

    I have been advised by many close friends and relatives who are current or past members of law enforcement that I should possess and carry a firearm because of my current personal and business lifestyle.

    I have not filed this lawsuit to further any cause other than my own, but realized that if the issues of RESIDENCY AND JUST CAUSE are properly addressed, it may have an effect on others in similar situations.


  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Riverside County, California, USA
    Posts
    353

    Post imported post

    N6ATF wrote:
    Edward Peruta wrote:
    Lets assume for arguments sake that your are correct.

    What are the draw backs to having another case filed in Federal Court, especially in Southern California.

    I've notified Gene Hoffman at Calguns and recieved emails from him and Jason Davis on the Federal Court filing that was done on Friday.

    I rarely visit Calguns on the internet, and*don't do much posting their, so I really don't know what is being said or not said on this topic. Obviously when I get back in California I*may visit their sight more often.

    I have no desire to interfere with their cases or tell them what to do, but cannot stand by and do nothing to defend my rights.

    One of the questions posed in my complaint is whether or*not I am to be considered a resident of San Diego County for CCW purposes.* This claim is not made in any other cases currently before a Federal Court in the Ninth Circuit. There is common gound in the Good Cause issue.*

    The facts in my claim of residence are a definate question that needs to be answered by the courts.* Another interesting question is whether or not my motor home is considered a home regardless of where it is.* After all, the Heller decsion specifically addresses the second amendment in the HOME, mine just has wheels and travels from state to state, including the District of Columbia and Federal Parks.

    Calguns was well aware of my circumstances together with my*plans to file a court action prior to their filing Sykes in May of 2009, and chose not to get actively involved in my issues.

    I was not, and am not, willing to wait until the United State Supreme Court rules on the Chicago case nor am I willing to sit by*twiddling*my thumbs in anticipation of other cases being resolved.

    I decided to pursue a legal solution on day one in November of 2008 when I was*informed that I was*NOT considered a resident of San Diego and needed to apply for my CCW in Los Angeles.

    It's gonna be what it's gonna be.

    I happen to be glad it's finally filed.

    *
    Don't mean this as attack, I just hate to see money and effort wasted unnecessarily.

    As we've seen with the stay in Sykes, you may not have a choice but to sit by and twiddle your thumbs, as the court will probably stay yours too in anticipation of the other cases. Residency restrictions are a part of Sykes, but not the residency restrictions you are facing.

    I guess since the other litigation is NorCal centric, it might not make sense to bind your two cases (or whatever the term is) and stick them in a CenCal location inbetween. I wonder if Sykes went one way, and yours went another, if the fed district split would have to be decided by the 9th Circuit just as we thought the circuit splits between Chicago, NY, and CA would go to SCOTUS.
    The CA cases pending the incorporation ruling have been working their way through the courts for 10 years IIRC. Getting a head start my not be a waste of time. Even if it is stayed at the initial level, at least it will have some priority once incorporation is settled.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    inbox485 wrote:
    N6ATF wrote:
    Edward Peruta wrote:
    Lets assume for arguments sake that your are correct.

    What are the draw backs to having another case filed in Federal Court, especially in Southern California.

    I've notified Gene Hoffman at Calguns and recieved emails from him and Jason Davis on the Federal Court filing that was done on Friday.

    I rarely visit Calguns on the internet, anddon't do much posting their, so I really don't know what is being said or not said on this topic. Obviously when I get back in California Imay visit their sight more often.

    I have no desire to interfere with their cases or tell them what to do, but cannot stand by and do nothing to defend my rights.

    One of the questions posed in my complaint is whether ornot I am to be considered a resident of San Diego County for CCW purposes. This claim is not made in any other cases currently before a Federal Court in the Ninth Circuit. There is common gound in the Good Cause issue.

    The facts in my claim of residence are a definate question that needs to be answered by the courts. Another interesting question is whether or not my motor home is considered a home regardless of where it is. After all, the Heller decsion specifically addresses the second amendment in the HOME, mine just has wheels and travels from state to state, including the District of Columbia and Federal Parks.

    Calguns was well aware of my circumstances together with myplans to file a court action prior to their filing Sykes in May of 2009, and chose not to get actively involved in my issues.

    I was not, and am not, willing to wait until the United State Supreme Court rules on the Chicago case nor am I willing to sit bytwiddlingmy thumbs in anticipation of other cases being resolved.

    I decided to pursue a legal solution on day one in November of 2008 when I wasinformed that I wasNOT considered a resident of San Diego and needed to apply for my CCW in Los Angeles.

    It's gonna be what it's gonna be.

    I happen to be glad it's finally filed.

    Don't mean this as attack, I just hate to see money and effort wasted unnecessarily.

    As we've seen with the stay in Sykes, you may not have a choice but to sit by and twiddle your thumbs, as the court will probably stay yours too in anticipation of the other cases. Residency restrictions are a part of Sykes, but not the residency restrictions you are facing.

    I guess since the other litigation is NorCal centric, it might not make sense to bind your two cases (or whatever the term is) and stick them in a CenCal location inbetween. I wonder if Sykes went one way, and yours went another, if the fed district split would have to be decided by the 9th Circuit just as we thought the circuit splits between Chicago, NY, and CA would go to SCOTUS.
    The CA cases pending the incorporation ruling have been working their way through the courts for 10 years IIRC. Getting a head start my not be a waste of time. Even if it is stayed at the initial level, at least it will have some priority once incorporation is settled.
    Case. Nordyke. 1999
    Pena v Cid Challenge to Roster of Handguns, April 2009

    Sykes v. McGinness Carry in Yolo and Sacramento Counties, May 2009


  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Riverside County, California, USA
    Posts
    353

    Post imported post

    N6ATF wrote:
    inbox485 wrote:
    N6ATF wrote:
    The CA cases pending the incorporation ruling have been working their way through the courts for 10 years IIRC. Getting a head start my not be a waste of time. Even if it is stayed at the initial level, at least it will have some priority once incorporation is settled.
    Case. Nordyke. 1999
    Pena v Cid Challenge to Roster of Handguns, April 2009

    Sykes v. McGinness Carry in Yolo and Sacramento Counties, May 2009
    Thanks for the details.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •