Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 76

Thread: Eighteen Page Decsion with references to "OPEN LOADED CARRY"

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

    Post imported post

    I decided to post the Judge's decision so everyone can read it and digest what this could mean regarding CCWs and OPEN LOADED CARRY in California.





  2. #2
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691

    Post imported post


    When a fundamental right is recognized, substantive due process forbids infringement of that

    right “
    at all, no matter what process is provided, unless the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve

    a compelling state interest.” Flores, 507 U.S. at 301-02 (citations omitted) (emphasis in original). On

    the other hand, intermediate scrutiny allows the State to regulate the right at issue if necessary to

    further an important governmental interest.

    This was interesting. What is an "important state interest" and an "important governmental interest"?
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The rights existence is all the reason he needs.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Post imported post

    I'm just glad you're reading and it dosen't seem hard to read the Judge.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cherry Tree (Indiana County), Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,155

    Post imported post

    My non-lawyer take:

    One possibility is that the prohibition on loaded open carry will be thrown out, but that looks unlikely.

    The one-year residency requirement? Gone.

    Good cause? If you say you need it, then they're going to have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you don't.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691

    Post imported post

    I hope the "good moral character" is thrown out. I may have done some immoral things in my life. That guy's wife was really cute.
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The rights existence is all the reason he needs.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Post imported post

    I agree that Loaded Open Carry is the only option when a state deniesan individuals applicationto conceal carry.

    I posted the decision before I read it, and am slowly beginning to comprehend the significance of what the Judge says.

    SHE GETS IT.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691

    Post imported post

    Edward Peruta wrote:
    I agree that Loaded Open Carry is the only option when a state deniesan individuals applicationto conceal carry.

    I posted the decision before I read it, and am slowly beginning to comprehend the significance of what the Judge says.

    SHE GETS IT.
    I would perfer to LOC. At my age, 68, I want all the bad guys to know I'm not a soft target.
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The rights existence is all the reason he needs.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Vista, California, USA
    Posts
    516

    Post imported post

    I think it was John Steinbeck that said, "Never pick a fight with an old man. If he's too old to fight, he'll just kill you."

    Or something like that.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    I read it. Good stuff.

    So your case survived their motion to dismiss, and with all kinds of good analysis in the reasoning, to boot.

    What's next?

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    661

    Post imported post

    Way to go Edward! If California falls, the rest will come down like dominoes. Perhaps this might even force the 9th circuit to reconsider their reversal of incorporation. The initial ruling bodes well not only in your case, but could very well have implications for the nuttiness going on in Orange County. I'll be keeping my fingers crossed for you!

    Three cheers from the great state of Arizona where freedom still reigns! :celebrate

  11. #11
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    Dahwg wrote:
    Perhaps this might even force the 9th circuit to reconsider their reversal of incorporation.
    Three cheers from the great state of Arizona where freedom still reigns! :celebrate

    The 9th did not reverse "incorporation". They voted to hear Nordyke 'En Banc' (full court).The three judge decisionwas "stayed" pending that hearing AND put on hold pending the settlement of "2nd A. Incorporation" in SCOTUS' up coming 'McDonald v Chicago' case.

    The 9th will not be hearing any 2nd A. incorporation argument again.


    and

    Congrats Ed!

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Post imported post

    marshaul wrote:
    I read it. Good stuff.

    So your case survived their motion to dismiss, and with all kinds of good analysis in the reasoning, to boot.

    What's next?
    I will be talking to my attorney tomorrow and have circulated the decision to the local media outlet here in San Diego. I would think that the discovery phase COULD begin and I have many questions and would like to see many public records pertaining to applications, denials, approvals and other aspects of the CCW process.

    I also believe that this case will have significant traction if the Chicago case mandate's incorporation.

    I will also suggest that my attorney contact the NRA legal fund for any additional funding and assistance to properly proceed with the case.

    I made a decision to spend whatever it takes to go the distance, but would not refuse financial assistance or expert advise if it was made available.

    Attorney Paul Neuharth is the Captain of this ship and I will do whatever he suggests.

    Damn the torpedoes, FULL SPEED AHEAD.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Post imported post

    cato wrote:
    Dahwg wrote:
    Perhaps this might even force the 9th circuit to reconsider their reversal of incorporation.
    Three cheers from the great state of Arizona where freedom still reigns! :celebrate

    The 9th did not reverse "incorporation". They voted to hear Nordyke 'En Banc' (full court).The three judge decisionwas "stayed" pending that hearing AND put on hold pending the settlement of "2nd A. Incorporation" in SCOTUS' up coming 'McDonald v Chicago' case.

    The 9th will not be hearing any 2nd A. incorporation argument again.


    and

    Congrats Ed!
    Cato,

    Was up in LA for the past nine days and was going to give you a call but was up to my backside in other issues.

    This decision was a nice welcome home to San Diego.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    This is a beautiful decision. How will you proceed?
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitableand let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come . PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  15. #15
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    That was a pleasant read coming from a California court. Ms. Gonzalez does a superb job putting the Sheriff in his place.

    The most interesting part for me was reading this on page 14 which is talking about when a law is valid against the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment:

    The general rule is that legislation is presumed to be valid and will be sustained if the classification drawn by the statute is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.
    I didn't know of a hard and fast rule like this. Take the law that allows police to carry concealed. What legitimate state interest does that serve? It allows police to use deadly force to prevent crime. How is that different from a non-police officer from being allowed to carry concealed? We also can use deadly force to prevent crime.

    I'm sure the retort would be, "Ah, but police officers don't commit crimes." But that's a bunch of baloney, police officers commit crimes all the time.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Post imported post

    This case started out being about me and my personal issues and problems in San Diego.

    I have spent a lot of time on gun issues duringthe past two and one half years and saw these issues and realized that they were not just about me, San Diego or California.

    I talked to several attorneys some who were not willing to get involved, and finally found and chose an attorney who wasn't afraid to listen and act onthese problems.

    There were those that had doubts and some who questioned my motives or willingness to see this to it's proper end. It's really not my issue, I honestly believe that these three issues effect everyone who owns a firearm particularly handguns.

    To be perfectly honest, I wish it was someone else that was fighting this fight.

    Residency, Good Cause and the right to travel effect many people in many states.

    I am extremely impressed with the fact that the Judge seems to understand the issues.

    I will know more after speaking with my attorney.

    I'll keep everyone posted and upload information and large files to my website:

    http://ctgunrights.com/00.Webpages/C...to.Dismiss.htm


    In for a penny in for a pound.

    P.S. The Sheriff has sent me a check for the $50.51 that his department improperly took from me with my initial application.

  17. #17
    Regular Member wewd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    664

    Post imported post

    Now that this case will certainly be going to full hearings, you can expect more than just the SDSO legal department fighting you. The CA DOJ will be bringing its weight to the fight, because this will affect the entire state, not just San Diego county. Any and all help you can get from the NRA, the various California orgs including CALNRA, CRPA, and (gag) Calguns, the better.

    I wish you luck, Ed. Do not be alarmed if you and I ever meet and I just happen to plant a big, wet, sloppy kiss on you.
    Do you want to enjoy liberty in your lifetime?

    Consider moving to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project.

    "Live Free or Die"

  18. #18
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691

    Post imported post

    wewd wrote:
    Now that this case will certainly be going to full hearings, you can expect more than just the SDSO legal department fighting you. The CA DOJ will be bringing its weight to the fight, because this will affect the entire state, not just San Diego county. Any and all help you can get from the NRA, the various California orgs including CALNRA, CRPA, and (gag) Calguns, the better.

    I wish you luck, Ed. Do not be alarmed if you and I ever meet and I just happen to plant a big, wet, sloppy kiss on you.
    EEEWWWWWWW!!!!!
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The rights existence is all the reason he needs.

  19. #19
    Regular Member wewd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    664

    Post imported post

    Gundude wrote:
    EEEWWWWWWW!!!!!
    I promise to brush my teeth and use Listerine beforehand.
    Do you want to enjoy liberty in your lifetime?

    Consider moving to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project.

    "Live Free or Die"

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1

    Post imported post

    Ed, just want to say I've been following your postings for a few months now and I appreciate you sharing and keeping us all informed of the progress. I read the entire 18-page decision and it is good news. I know it's just the first step, but there's a lot of promising references and case law referenced that are stacked in your (our) favor.

    Thank you for standing up for our rights!

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Pacheco, California, USA
    Posts
    1

    Post imported post

    Hey yelohamr. I like that quote too as I share that sentiment.

  22. #22
    Regular Member wewd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    664

    Post imported post

    "No man in the wrong can stand up against a fellow that’s in the right and keeps on a-comin'." -- Bill McDonald, Texas Ranger
    Do you want to enjoy liberty in your lifetime?

    Consider moving to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project.

    "Live Free or Die"

  23. #23
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691

    Post imported post

    Another interesting part in that pdf. Looks like the residency part is gone.



    It is well-established “that a State may not impose a penalty upon those who exercise a right guaranteed by the Constitution.” Harman v. Forssenius, 380 U.S. 528, 540 (1965) (citationomitted); accord Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 340-41 (1972). “Constitutional rights would be of little value if they could be ... indirectly denied, or manipulated out of existence.” Harman, 380 U.S. at 540 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Taking Plaintiff’s allegations as true, it appears the “residency” requirement as applied by Defendants does actually deter individuals such as Plaintiff from exercising their right to travel in that they are being “penalized” for traveling and spending time outside of San Diego by not being able to obtain a concealed weapon’s permit.
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The rights existence is all the reason he needs.

  24. #24
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    bumping the good news story of the day

  25. #25
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    I know we can't start celebrating yet, but I get a good feeling that this judge is going to do good work on this case. From what I've read so far, it appears the decision is carefully researched and thoughtfully reasoned.

    Keep up the great work Ed! If you ever pass through the I-5 or Hwy-99 corridors near Modesto drop me a line so I can buy you a cup of coffee. I'd even open carry for the occasion.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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