Eighteen Page Decsion with references to "OPEN LOADED CARRY"

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.

imported post


[align=left]When a fundamental right is recognized, substantive due process forbids infringement of that[/align]
[align=left]right “at all, no matter what process is provided, unless the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve[/align]
[align=left]a compelling state interest.” Flores, 507 U.S. at 301-02 (citations omitted) (emphasis in original). On[/align]
[align=left]the other hand, intermediate scrutiny allows the State to regulate the right at issue if necessary to[/align]
further an important governmental interest.

This was interesting. What is an "important state interest" and an "important governmental interest"?

imported post

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

I would perfer to LOC. At my age, 68, I want all the bad guys to know I'm not a soft target.

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.

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?

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

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

Click to expand...

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!

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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

Click to expand...

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!

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

This is a beautiful decision. How will you proceed?

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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/CA.motion.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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

EEEWWWWWWW!!!!!

imported post

Gundude wrote:

EEEWWWWWWW!!!!!

Click to expand...

I promise to brush my teeth and use Listerine beforehand.

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!