Edward Peruta
Regular Member
imported post
I previously posted the Summons/Cover Sheet of the complaint.
Here is the actual Complaint
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/index.php/Sykes_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.I previously posted the Summons/Cover Sheet of the complaint.
Here is the actual Complaint
Don't mean this as attack, I just hate to see money and effort wasted unnecessarily.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.
Edward Peruta wrote:Don't mean this as attack, I just hate to see money and effort wasted unnecessarily.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.
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.
Case. Nordyke. 1999N6ATF wrote:
Edward Peruta wrote:Don't mean this as attack, I just hate to see money and effort wasted unnecessarily.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.
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.
Thanks for the details.inbox485 wrote:Case. Nordyke. 1999N6ATF 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.
Pena v Cid Challenge to Roster of Handguns, April 2009
Sykes v. McGinness Carry in Yolo and Sacramento Counties, May 2009