Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Peruta's Case Conference Call Today

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    16

    Post imported post

    Good luck with the "ENE" scheduled to take place today. To the extent doing so does not compromise your interests, please post the substance of the Court's telephonic conference with the attorneys.

    Again, good luck.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Post imported post

    UPDATE:

    There was a confrence call this morning andI received a call from my San Diego Attorney Paul Neuharth who has informed me thatthere will be no settlement of the case.

    So it's GAME ON and the discovery process will soon begin.

    If any additional information becomes available I will post it here.





  3. #3
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691

    Post imported post

    Edward Peruta wrote:
    UPDATE:

    There was a confrence call this morning andI received a call from my San Diego Attorney Paul Neuharth who has informed me thatthere will be no settlement of the case.

    So it's GAME ON and the discovery process will soon begin.

    If any additional information becomes available I will post it here.



    The discovery processshould give a good look at the inner workings of the CCW policies and procedures.
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,052

    Post imported post

    The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
    ~Ayn Rand


    Good luck

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

    Post imported post

    My Attorney has asked me to put together a wish list for discovery purposes.

    Obviously I would ike to know who got permits under similar cirumstances.

    I would also like to know who was denied.

    If anyone has specific evidence or facts regarding irregularities in the CCW processat the San Diego Sheriff's Department, please feel free to send me the details at my private email address: edperuta@amcable.tv.

    Specifically, I'm looking for those that have and have not been issued CCWs for personal protection.



  6. #6
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    I'm not at all surprised, but sorry to hear your justice is further delayed.

    At the same time, I'm excited that you'll be given the opportunity to give them a proper beat-down in court.

    Stick it to 'em, Ed. I only wish there was more I could do than cheer from the sidelines.
    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.

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

    Post imported post

    Its funny because the CCW process has all the trappings of some secret society'sinitiation process.

    Even with the work done by team billy jack, and other members of the CA gun community, its still a mysterious and ambiguous process. I'd say Mr. Peruta's case will shine some very bright light on misconducts, injustices and inconsistencies within the process.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    They are shooting themselves in the foot (will help the rest of us). If they just gave you a CCW permit, you'd have no case. I don't understand their rational, and why they are wasting tax payers money.

    As said, it will help everyone else however when you do win.

    Edward Peruta wrote:
    UPDATE:

    There was a confrence call this morning andI received a call from my San Diego Attorney Paul Neuharth who has informed me thatthere will be no settlement of the case.

    So it's GAME ON and the discovery process will soon begin.

    If any additional information becomes available I will post it here.




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

    Post imported post

    Pace,

    Your comments are well taken, but you must realize that even if they gave me a CCW, the case would NOT be moot.

    I'm not going to go into details on why, but I have enjoyed access to a great deal of federal case law which explains that the case would be allowed to continue on the merits.

    The issuance of a CCW would only mitigate the actual and/or punitive damage aspects of the case. The fact that my Constiutional Rights were violated for the period of time between denal and issuance remains.

    When Constitutional Rights are violated for even a brief period of time, the violations are entitled to Judical review.





  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Post imported post

    UPDATE:

    I believe I am now at liberty to reveal that I offered to settle the current Federal case if the San Diego Sheriff's Department was prepared toissue me a CCW and reimbursed for my current out of pocket legal fees.

    When asked for details of the conference, I was informed by my attorney that the County/Sheriff's Department declined to settle on my terms under the belief that to issue me a CCW would open the door to gang bangers to do likewise.

    I now believe that San Diego County advocatesthrowingbabies out with with the bath water in their policies and practices that deny CCWs tohonest law abidingCalifornia residents.

    Based on what I have been told, it appears thatthe San Diego Sheriff's Department believes and will claim that denying honest law abiding residents CCWs serves a public purpose and acomplishes their goal of keeping other individuals involved who may be involved incriminal activities from obtaining CCWs.

    This could be the reason that otherClaifornia residents in the countiesnot near the Mexican boarder orin communities that do nothavelarge populations of gang bangersexperienceless hassles or denials in obtainingaCalifornia CCW.

    I'm still trying to digest what I have been told, but regardless of where this case goes, it's obvious that there are serious problems in the CCW process regardless of where you live in California.

    The only good thing is the fact that I'm now going to be able to demanddocuments and take depostions from people under oath.


    Maybe I made a mistake in choosing to reside in San Diego.


  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    542

    Post imported post

    Edward Peruta wrote:
    UPDATE:

    I believe I am now at liberty to reveal that I offered to settle the current Federal case if the San Diego Sheriff's Department was prepared toissue me a CCW and reimbursed for my current out of pocket legal fees.

    When asked for details of the conference, I was informed by my attorney that the County/Sheriff's Department declined to settle on my terms under the belief that to issue me a CCW would open the door to gang bangers to do likewise.

    I now believe that San Diego County advocatesthrowingbabies out with with the bath water in their policies and practices that deny CCWs tohonest law abidingCalifornia residents.

    Based on what I have been told, it appears thatthe San Diego Sheriff's Department believes and will claim that denying honest law abiding residents CCWs serves a public purpose and acomplishes their goal of keeping other individuals involved who may be involved incriminal activities from obtaining CCWs.

    This could be the reason that otherClaifornia residents in the countiesnot near the Mexican boarder orin communities that do nothavelarge populations of gang bangersexperienceless hassles or denials in obtainingaCalifornia CCW.

    I'm still trying to digest what I have been told, but regardless of where this case goes, it's obvious that there are serious problems in the CCW process regardless of where you live in California.

    Maybe I made a mistake in choosing to reside in San Diego.

    Hot damn.

    That is the most absurd rationale they could have possibly chosen to use. I've heard it before, but this is an instance where there is no chance it could be acceptable. They aren't dealing with suburban soccer moms, this is Federal Court.

    Was there a specific official of SD County who intimated this to you and your representation or was this a claim made by their own representation?

    Come to Fresno, the CCWs are given to those who need them. On second thought, the downside would be that you have to deal with the reason they are more reasonable to acquire: its f&#!ing dangerous here.

    They know they are wrong, hell they knew they were wrong when they balled up your application and told you to go pound sand. They were grasping for straws when they feigned idiocy with the domicile/residency "misunderstanding" and they are defferring responsibility further now. Rejecting your settlment offer with that rationale is childish, and I can only imagine the frustration you might experience.

    I doubt you would have settled with them anyway, with the certain pitbull like tendencies you possess. Maybe I'm wrong, I shouldn't assume that.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691

    Post imported post

    That sounds like Brady bunch logic. Dunno what gangbangers and I have in common other than the fact that I might take a wrong turn and end up on their turf.
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.

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

    Post imported post

    To heliopolissolutions:

    I don't believe that it's important at this point in time to reveal who said it.

    I had reason to ask my attorney to explain what happened and he gave me a brief explanation.

    The conversations took place during a court ordered telephone call in an attempt to settle the case.

    I believe that my offer was more than reasonable.

    The issue of "RESIDENCY" did not come up and was not discussed.


    But maybe they are trying to address the court's concerns.


    I know that in the Judge's ruling she clearly stated on page 11 of same:

    Under both “strict scrutiny” and “intermediate scrutiny” the burden is on the government to show that the challenged law is constitutional, by demonstrating that the law is either “narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest,” Flores, 507 U.S. at 301-02 (citations omitted), or necessary to further an important governmental interest, Sell, 539 U.S. at 178- 80. In the present case, apart from arguing that Section 12050 is within one of the “presumptively lawful” restrictions recognized in Heller and that it passes “rational basis” standard of review, the government has made little effort to defend the statute’s constitutionality under either of the heightened levels of scrutiny.



  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    16

    Post imported post

    Edward Peruta wrote:
    When asked for details of the conference, I was informed by my attorney that the County/Sheriff's Department declined to settle on my terms under the belief that to issue me a CCW would open the door to gang bangers to do likewise.
    Allow me to suggest the above stated, goofy rationale be dragged out of the Sheriff's office under oath in the form of a deposition or interrogatories and thus placed on the record for use at trial.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    542

    Post imported post

    Edward Peruta wrote:
    To heliopolissolutions:

    I don't believe that it's important at this point in time to reveal who said it.
    You are correct, it really isn't. Except for the potentiality that the individual could be placed in a position to be held accountable for such a policy, which, if unsubstantiated might be useful to your case.


    Edward Peruta wrote:
    To heliopolissolutions:

    The issue of "RESIDENCY" did not come up and was not discussed.


    But maybe they are trying to address the court's concerns.


    I know that in the Judge's ruling she clearly stated on page 11 of same:

    Under both “strict scrutiny” and “intermediate scrutiny” the burden is on the government to show that the challenged law is constitutional, by demonstrating that the law is either “narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest,” Flores, 507 U.S. at 301-02 (citations omitted), or necessary to further an important governmental interest, Sell, 539 U.S. at 178- 80. In the present case, apart from arguing that Section 12050 is within one of the “presumptively lawful” restrictions recognized in Heller and that it passes “rational basis” standard of review, the government has made little effort to defend the statute’s constitutionality under either of the heightened levels of scrutiny.


    "In the present case, Defendant has made very little effort to either identify an “important governmental interest” or demonstrate the required “fit” between the law and the interest served.
    13""


    To me is one of the more scathing parts of that ruling, even moreso because there was no intention of chastisement.


    I feel like I'm missing something here, but how would their current stance appease the court's concerns with regards to identifying interests?

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Central, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    359

    Post imported post

    heliopolissolutions wrote:
    I feel like I'm missing something here, but how would their current stance appease the court's concerns with regards to identifying interests?
    It would seem that San Diego is positioning themselves to argue that keeping licenses/permits out of the hands of gang bangers and criminals is a "compelling state interest" that can only be accomplished by denying CCWs to law abiding citizens as well. It's a weak argument, but it's all they have at this point.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cherry Tree (Indiana County), Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,155

    Post imported post

    It's less than a weak argument, way less. So-called "gang bangers" and criminals are already prohibited from legally obtaining a gun, much less a license to carry concealed.

Posting Permissions

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