Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Local case gets referenced in new D.C. gun case

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Central, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    359

    Post imported post

    I didn't see this already posted, so I thought I'd offer it.

    For those not aware, Alan Gura (of Heller and McDonald fame) is working on the right to bear arms in D.C. with a new lawsuit. Background on the case is below.

    The part I want to bring up is in D.C.'s response to Gura's oral arguments:
    Plaintiffs notified the Court of Peruta v. County of San Diego, ___ F.Supp.2d ___, 2010 WL 143762 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2010). In that case, the government denied the plaintiff’s application for a concealed-weapon permit, finding that he did not have “good cause” and was not a resident of San Diego, both requirements under the challenged law. Id., slip op. at 2 (citing CAL. PENAL CODE § 12050). Plaintiff sued the County and the Sheriff individually, alleging violations of the Second Amendment, equal protection, and the right to travel. Id. at 3.
    D.C.'s response to oral arguments (linked below)
    Gura's reply to D.C.'s unauthorized supplemental

    ET Correct: Apparently D.C.'s supplemental was in response to the oral arguments that took place in January and that they were apparently unhappy with.

    ETC: I keep forgetting how to spell McDonald.

    Background on this case:
    It's basically a lawsuit against D.C. for refusing to allow both D.C. residents and non-D.C. residents to carry within the limits of D.C. This, as with previous Alan Gura cases, would have wide-reaching impact. At this stage it's in US District Court, but could easily follow the same path the Heller case did.

    The case seems to be doing two things. First, specifically call out and affirm the right of residents to "bear" arms. Second, prohibit the Federal Gov't from denying the rights of individuals who visit DC, but do not live there, under the Equal Protection clause.

    If this case, and the subsequent one that would undoubtedly seek to incorporate the right to "bear" arms, goes through the Supreme Court in our favor, no state would be allowed to deny the carrying of a firearm to any citizen of the US. There would of course be those prohibited persons who could be denied that right, but there would have to be a non-arbitrary process by which each non-prohibited person is able to exercise their right to keep and bear arms throughout the entire country.


    Complaint filed by Alan Gura - Aug. 6, 2009
    Motion for Summary Judgement filed by Alan Gura - Aug. 26, 2009
    Gun Owners' Next Victory in D.C. by Robert Levy - Sept. 1, 2009

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Peninsula, Bay Area, CA
    Posts
    120

    Post imported post

    The Peruta case had, shall we say, borrowed liberally from Mr. Gura's Sykes case in Sacramento, so the win on the motion to dismiss is a win on the theories and pleadings Mr. Gura is litigating both in Sacramento and DC.

    -Gene

  3. #3
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660

    Post imported post

    hoffmang wrote:
    The Peruta case had, shall we say, borrowed liberally from Mr. Gura's Sykes case in Sacramento, so the win on the motion to dismiss is a win on the theories and pleadings Mr. Gura is litigating both in Sacramento and DC.

    -Gene
    So.... :?

    Seems to me that's a good thing. Way to go Gura for articulating an argument that finally works. Way to go Ed for being smart enough to build upon a well laid, strong foundation to further the cause.
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  4. #4
    Regular Member wewd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    664

    Post imported post

    hoffmang wrote:
    The Peruta case had, shall we say, borrowed liberally from Mr. Gura's Sykes case in Sacramento, so the win on the motion to dismiss is a win on the theories and pleadings Mr. Gura is litigating both in Sacramento and DC.

    -Gene
    Did somebody forget to kiss your ring or something? Not enough genuflecting? You never fail to post this in any thread to do with the Peruta case. We get it.

    When another attorney copies portions of your brief, it is probably because you did something right, and is generally considered complimentary.

    Ed is personally funding his own case, for the benefit of us all. His case is taking several different attack angles that Sykes is not, so I don't consider it a copycat case, and it deserves its day in court every bit as much as the others. And it can never hurt to have a "back up plan" should any of the other "bear" cases fail in some way. Whether it be his case, or Sykes, or some other case that restores us our rights in this state, it is the endgame that we are after, and I personally don't care how we win, so long as we do win.
    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"

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    542

    Post imported post

    hoffmang wrote:
    The Peruta case had, shall we say, borrowed liberally from Mr. Gura's Sykes case in Sacramento, so the win on the motion to dismiss is a win on the theories and pleadings Mr. Gura is litigating both in Sacramento and DC.

    -Gene
    I'm pretty sure that not all lawyers, plaintiffs, defendants and activists are in it for the glory and credit.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Peninsula, Bay Area, CA
    Posts
    120

    Post imported post

    I'm curious why everyone is so defensive. I stated facts that it shouldn't be surprising that Mr. Gura filed the ruling in Peruta in his case in D.C.

    I guess everyone here likes making Alan Gura's life harder? It's not like he actually resurrected the Federal right to arms or anything...

    -Gene

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    542

    Post imported post

    hoffmang wrote:
    I'm curious why everyone is so defensive. I stated facts that it shouldn't be surprising that Mr. Gura filed the ruling in Peruta in his case in D.C.

    I guess everyone here likes making Alan Gura's life harder? It's not like he actually resurrected the Federal right to arms or anything...

    -Gene
    I don't really think anyone here intends to detract from Mr. Gura's accomplishments...

    Nor can I see how we are making his life any more challenging; seems like anything I could hope to do would be smallpotatoes next to staring down the men in black.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Post imported post

    hoffmang wrote:
    The Peruta case had, shall we say, borrowed liberally from Mr. Gura's Sykes case in Sacramento, so the win on the motion to dismiss is a win on the theories and pleadings Mr. Gura is litigating both in Sacramento and DC.

    -Gene
    This information is also posted in another area on a different topic so please understand my reasons for posting it here.

    I support what Calguns and the Second Amendment Foundation is doing together with the work of Attorney Alan Gura.

    Gene and I did talk prior to my filing the Federal case and I also had discussions with Attorney Jason Davis. But please remember that I began the CCW process in November of 2008 a full six months prior to Sykes being filed.

    The fact that I recorded my first official/initial CCW interview and began to document what was happening is evidence that I knew where my situation was headed. I can also state without any doubt or hesitationthat myaudio recording and documents created by Sheriff's Department staff make it quite clear that they knew I was prepared to litigate the issues. These documents can beviewed and accessed at http://www.cagunrights.com.

    What the Sheriff's Departmentmay have thought was I didn't have the financial or legal resources to follow though. Government agencies are often told by citizens that they will sue and have relied upon the fact that most never do.

    I made phone calls and did research to find an attorney willing to take my case and paid the amount to do so without any questions or haggling over the amount. I called several attorneys in California some of which are very well known here and on Calguns.

    So, for the record, I did in fact discuss what my issues were,my beliefs and what I wanted to do. I may even have told Gene Hoffman and Jason Davis that my case was basically a case of equal protection.

    My belief hinged on the fact that thein California the CCW is a state license which was and is easier to obtain by individuals residing in some California counties over others.

    I believe that NO California resident regardless of their county of residence should be denied the right to have their "GOOD CAUSE" statements considered on an equal basis.

    In other words if someone in a CCW friendly county is successful in obtaining a STATE CCW by offering similar or exact good cause reasons, I should be entitled to a CCW also.

    Did my attorney obtain, read and copy sections of thecomplaint in the Sykescase which were drafted by Attorney Alan Gura? I'm now sure he may have.

    What is importantare the facts,evidence and specifics to my situation.

    I could care less if the Calguns Foundation or members of their board find fault in what has happened. I am still, and will remain open to any constructive discussions regardless of their positions or emotions regarding how I got where I am.

    The CalgunsFoundation, The Second Amendment Foundation and the NRA havevery well plannedlegal strategies andmay,(based on the current facts), be very successful in what they are planning, but they shouldunderstand that they are not the only playersin the fight to win the right to self defense.

    I have never had the opportunity to meet Gene Hoffman, Jason Davis or any of their board members personally and may neverbe able to earn their respect.

    I did in fact travel up to the UCLA School of lawthe other day to attend and listen to theMOOT COURT and specifically made it a point to introduce myself to Attorney Alan Gura after it was over.

    During our extremely brief meeting, I introduced myself, offered my apology for any emotional distress or hard feeling my filing in San Diego may have caused him and then walked away to return to San Diego.

    I hope this posting clearsup some of theissues and allowseveryone to concentrate on the current legal issues rather than who did what and who should get the credit.

    FOR THE RECORD:

    IF IOBTAIN A CCW OR SUCCEED IN THE CURRENT FEDERAL LITIGATION I WILL MAKE IT A POINT TO:

    1. THANK MY ATTORNEY FOR TAKING MY CASE AND REPRESENTING ME WHEN THECALGUNS FOUNDATION WOULD NOT.

    2. AND SPECIFICALLY THANK ATTORNEY ALAN GURA FOR HIS EXPERT WRITING IN THESYKES COMPLAINT.


  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , California, USA
    Posts
    560

    Post imported post

    hoffmang wrote:
    I'm curious why everyone is so defensive. I stated facts that it shouldn't be surprising that Mr. Gura filed the ruling in Peruta in his case in D.C.

    I guess everyone here likes making Alan Gura's life harder? It's not like he actually resurrected the Federal right to arms or anything...

    -Gene
    I'm sure we're all on the same side here, making Alan Gura's life harder is the reason we wake up in the morning. Right folks?

    Seriously though, mostly (and just speaking for myself) just tired of the incessant bitching about 'omg he filed and wah wah wah'. It's like a Peruta thread should come with a box of tissues for calguns, or something. (Not all calguns, just the complaining individuals-the point has been made, got it, let's move on, the case is still going forward and no point in crying over spilt milk...in yet another thread, for another week)

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    542

    Post imported post

    Edward Peruta wrote:
    .

    I did in fact travel up to the UCLA School of lawthe other day to attend and listen to theMOOT COURT and specifically made it a point to introduce myself to Attorney Alan Gura after it was over.

    During our extremely brief meeting, I introduced myself, offered my apology for any emotional distress or hard feeling my filing in San Diego may have caused him and then walked away to return to San Diego.
    I didn't know you went up and met him, thats pretty exciting; cool beans.

  11. #11
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660

    Post imported post

    heliopolissolutions wrote:
    Edward Peruta wrote:
    .

    I did in fact travel up to the UCLA School of lawthe other day to attend and listen to theMOOT COURT and specifically made it a point to introduce myself to Attorney Alan Gura after it was over.

    During our extremely brief meeting, I introduced myself, offered my apology for any emotional distress or hard feeling my filing in San Diego may have caused him and then walked away to return to San Diego.
    I didn't know you went up and met him, thats pretty exciting; cool beans.
    Why not spend a little more time to chat? That is assuming he had the time and was willing. Does he have hard feelings? Or is it just CGF that's belly-aching? Not that it matters, just curious.


    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    542

    Post imported post

    Oh, lets not fixate on that nonsense anymore than we absolutely have to, you know how those lectures are, in and out.



  13. #13
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660

    Post imported post

    hoffmang wrote:
    I'm curious why everyone is so defensive. I stated facts that it shouldn't be surprising that Mr. Gura filed the ruling in Peruta in his case in D.C.

    I guess everyone here likes making Alan Gura's life harder? It's not like he actually resurrected the Federal right to arms or anything...

    -Gene
    You can't be serious.
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    542

    Post imported post

    coolusername2007 wrote:
    hoffmang wrote:
    I'm curious why everyone is so defensive. I stated facts that it shouldn't be surprising that Mr. Gura filed the ruling in Peruta in his case in D.C.

    I guess everyone here likes making Alan Gura's life harder? It's not like he actually resurrected the Federal right to arms or anything...

    -Gene
    You can't be serious.
    FFS, this is going to go retarded pretty quick.

    I know its hard, but biting ones tounge can often be the better part of argument.

  15. #15
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660

    Post imported post

    heliopolissolutions wrote:
    coolusername2007 wrote:
    hoffmang wrote:
    I'm curious why everyone is so defensive. I stated facts that it shouldn't be surprising that Mr. Gura filed the ruling in Peruta in his case in D.C.

    I guess everyone here likes making Alan Gura's life harder? It's not like he actually resurrected the Federal right to arms or anything...

    -Gene
    You can't be serious.
    FFS, this is going to go retarded pretty quick.

    I know its hard, but biting ones tounge can often be the better part of argument.
    You're right...proceeding to bite one's tongue. Oh wait, does it have to be mine?
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    542

    Post imported post

    coolusername2007 wrote:
    heliopolissolutions wrote:
    coolusername2007 wrote:
    hoffmang wrote:
    I'm curious why everyone is so defensive. I stated facts that it shouldn't be surprising that Mr. Gura filed the ruling in Peruta in his case in D.C.

    I guess everyone here likes making Alan Gura's life harder? It's not like he actually resurrected the Federal right to arms or anything...

    -Gene
    You can't be serious.
    FFS, this is going to go retarded pretty quick.

    I know its hard, but biting ones tounge can often be the better part of argument.
    You're right...proceeding to bite one's tongue. Oh wait, does it have to be mine?
    Nope!

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    16

    Post imported post

    Edward Peruta wrote:
    I have never had the opportunity to meet Gene Hoffman, Jason Davis or any of their board members personally and may neverbe able to earn their respect.
    Why at this point especially with regard to Gene Hoffman would you necessarily want to? Upon some reflection you might conclude that what matters more is how you regard them, not how they regard you.



  18. #18
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    coolusername2007 wrote:
    You're right...proceeding to bite one's tongue. Oh wait, does it have to be mine?
    Be careful, I hear people get slap-chopped for that sort of thing.


    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.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691

    Post imported post

    I've been slapped in the chops before. It was her way of saying "no".
    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.

Posting Permissions

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