Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Partial Motion for Summary Judgment Filed in Peruta v. San Diego

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

    Partial Motion for Summary Judgment Filed in Peruta v. San Diego

    A partial Motion for Summary Judgment has been filed in my San Diego Federal Case.

    I have most of the facts and documents posted at www.cagunrights.com in chronological order.

    Notice the new information regarding the San Diego Honorary Deputy Sheriff’s Association and the members of this very private group.

    There is a new scheduling order which sets a hearing for November 1, 2010.

    Read between the lines and ask yourself why “Residency” is not included or argued in this document.

    I am attempting to comply with the directives of my attorneys and will refrain from posting everything that I as a named plaintiff have been told regarding what is going on, but rest assured, there is much more to this story.

    I would personally like to thank The NRA, The California Rifle and Pistol Assocation, my San Diego Attorney Paul Neuharth and all of the legal team members at Michel and Associates including but not limited to, Attorney C.D Michel, Attorney Sean Brady, Investigator Preston Guillory andof course Sean Brady’s assistant Valerie for their dedicated work in preparing this motion.

    I would also like to acknowlege the information and contact I originally had with members of Calguns.net and Calfguns Foundation, who did have comments on my case.

    You will notice that I joined the Open Carry forum in September of 2007.

    Without this forum's posted information I would never have obtained the additional knowledge of CCW and Open Carry information that currently provides me the oppurtunity to discuss ALL aspects of the current problems faced by law abiding citizens who believe in the right of self defense.

    As most of you may know, most of my involvement is in Connecticut and California sections of this board, but rest assured, I spend a great deal of my time reading the the issues of others here and at Calguns.net.

    It is with great respect that I thank each and every person who posts their issues for all to read.

    Here is a link to the recently filed motion.
    Attachment 3803
    Last edited by Edward Peruta; 09-04-2010 at 08:17 AM.

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Peruta View Post

    Read between the lines and ask yourself why “Residency” is not included or argued in this document.
    Would you prefer I keep my informed speculation to myself since I'm a plaintiff in a residency case, or should I keep my trap shut?

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

    The issue of residency and CCWs in California and other states.

    Gray,

    I think it's safe for you to comment and say what you want, I have been following your postings here and on Calguns with interest.

    I think it's safe to assume that the issue of whether or not The San Diego Sheriff's Department considers me a resident of San Diego for CCW purposes has been been discussed and resolved.

    I'm not going to state for certain that it's not going to be an issue later on down the road, but until such time as is see someting in writing, I'm going to refrain from offering any comments or informaiton on what I've been told.

    Obviously you know that I have a great interest in your Colorado case and how it will paly out for the thousands of people who enjoy multiple residences and travel throughout the United States. RATHER THAN STEALING YOUR WORDS, YOU SHOULD PASTE THE COMMENTS HERE FOR EVERYONE TO READ.

    Good luck and I will continue to follow your case.

    P.S. I just got back here from reading your post on Calguns regarding the case and the San Diego Honorary Deputy Sheriffs Association issues. I can assure you that this is going to get very interesting if all the information becomes public. I wouldn't be suprised to see a future Grand Jury investigation into the wheeling and dealing for CCW permits in San Diego.

    The veil of secrecy surrounding who obtains and/or possesses CCWs has created the current situation of abuse by public officials.
    Last edited by Edward Peruta; 09-04-2010 at 01:00 PM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Declaration of Mark Cleary

    This declaration has some very interesting information that may be of interest to everyone.

    Judge for yourself

    Attachment 3805
    Last edited by Edward Peruta; 09-04-2010 at 03:08 PM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    542
    Reading between the lines.

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

    Important Dates to keep in mind

    AND WHEREAS, THE PARTIES HAVE STIPULATED AND AGREED TO THE FOLLOWING:

    1. Plaintiffs shall file a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on or before September 3, 2010, the supporting Points and Authorities for which shall not exceed 25 pages.

    2. Defendants shall file their Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion, and simultaneously Defendants’ Cross Motion for Partial Summary Judgment or Summary Judgment on or before October 4, 2010, the supporting Points and Authorities for which shall not exceed 35 pages total.

    3. Plaintiffs shall file their Reply to Defendants’ Opposition and simultaneously Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Cross Motion on or before October 11, 2010, the supporting Points and Authorities for which shall not exceed 20 pages total.
    4. Defendants shall file their Reply to Plaintiffs’ Opposition on or before October 18, 2010, the supporting Points and Authorities for which shall not exceed 10 pages. The issues addressed in this Reply shall be limited to responding to the issues raised in Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Cross Motion. This Reply shall not address issues raised in Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defendants’ Opposition. In other words, this is not and shall not be written as a sur-reply.
    5. Plaintiffs’ Motion and Defendants’ Cross Motion should be heard in this Court on November 1, 2010.
    Last edited by Edward Peruta; 09-04-2010 at 07:34 PM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cherry Tree (Indiana County), Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,155
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Peruta View Post
    P.S. I just got back here from reading your post on Calguns regarding the case and the San Diego Honorary Deputy Sheriffs Association issues. I can assure you that this is going to get very interesting if all the information becomes public. I wouldn't be suprised to see a future Grand Jury investigation into the wheeling and dealing for CCW permits in San Diego.
    If everything goes south for the sheriff (and it's looking that way), perhaps more Grand Jury investigations will start in other counties.

    It looks to me as if the sheriff is backed into a corner. He can't admit wrongdoing in the lawsuit, yet he can't stop fighting the lawsuit.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    281

    San Diego is not the only one

    Edward, San Diego is hardly the only Sheriff's department that has a special "honorary" system. You only have to look one County to the North in Orange, and the same type of thing exist. Even though the current (from LA gun grabbing non elected) Sheriff wants to take many of the permits that have been issued away, there still exist a Sheriff's advisory Board and technical reserve unit(i think that is their names) that is a path to CCW issuance. While the rest of the honest quantifiable citizens that want a CCW get to swing in the breeze because they can't show good cause they are about to be harmed/robbed/murdered.

    Frankly ,if I was S.D. County, I would revoke all those permits they issued to the honorary members, and then claim they have "fixed" any inequity that existed. The summary judgment seems very well written, it will be interesting to see what kind of fairy tale response the attorney from SD County comes up with.
    Last edited by oc4ever; 09-05-2010 at 01:40 AM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    San Diego, California, United States
    Posts
    145
    Paragraph 13 has a typo for the date on the pdf file of the Cleary declaration. It gives a December 2010 date while i am sure it is supposed to be 2009.....if it makes a difference.
    Last edited by Devilinbp; 09-05-2010 at 02:46 AM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691
    Interesting that he got a permit after joining the Honorary Sheriff unit, and paid her dues. As soon as she quit, no permit. That smacks of arbritrary issuing of permits.

    Edit: oops....she to he
    Last edited by Gundude; 09-05-2010 at 05:46 PM.
    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.

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
    Interesting that she got a permit after joining the Honorary Sheriff unit, and paid her dues. As soon as she quit, no permit. That smacks of arbritrary issuing of permits.
    It's actually he, not she. Mark Cleary.

    Btw, Mark Cleary got his license. I find that very interesting.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691
    I just read this attached brief. 09.03.10 Peruta msj filed.pdf
    Gore is sooo screwed.
    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 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    204
    Quote Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
    I just read this attached brief. 09.03.10 Peruta msj filed.pdf
    Gore is sooo screwed.
    I wonder what story they would come up with now.

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

    Fantastic Strict Scrutiny Analysis

    This level of scrutiny analysis is fantastic.

    Alan Gura referenced this case in his current DC case (The right to bear arms, not Heller II).

    The Federal District Court Judge in the DC case, Kennedy, is dragging his feet. He should have ruled months ago, but has remained silent. It is possible that your case, which looks quite promising, with a compelling timeline, may be the fulcrum for deciding the DC case as well.
    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 inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  15. #15
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691
    I especially liked the part where they said Gore has the issueing process backwards. Almost everyone is elligible, and Gore should weed out those who aren't, but he assumes almost everyone shouldn't have one, and he decides who gets one.
    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.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    1,098

    Concealed Carry of handguns imminent?

    http://www.examiner.com/la-in-los-an...dguns-imminent

    Very likely by Thanksgiving.

    Last May I reported on the Peruta v San Diego case where Chief Federal Judge Irma Gonzalez denied a motion by the Sheriff to dismiss the case. The following is an excerpt from the article:

    In denying the motion to dismiss, the Court found on the question:
    1) The Right to Bear Arms - "The Supreme Court's decision in Heller made it clear - for the first time - that the Second Amendment guarantees "the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation." "The US Supreme Court did not hold that all concealed weapon bans are presumptively constitutional because in those states which had enacted a ban on concealed carry the people had a right to openly carry loaded handguns and "...unlike California there is a ready alternative available to the affected individuals - the right to carry weapons openly if they cannot obtain a concealed weapon's permit."

    "Unlike California" - When the California Legislature banned openly carried firearms from being loaded in 1967, it is certain that they did not foresee that nearly forty three years later that ban would result in the mandatory issuance of licenses to carry a concealed weapon (CCW). California has required a license to carry a concealed weapon since 1923. The California Legislature passed the law to keep Chinese and Latinos from carrying weapons concealed. In and of itself that should have been enough to overturn the law decades ago. But it was not until the mid 1980's that the tide began to turn against the prohibitions against carrying a weapon.




    Much more at link. Not sure how this will affect non-residents or open carry, but it should be "interesting" in the old Chinese Curse way...

  17. #17
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660
    Good article.

Posting Permissions

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