Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 51

Thread: Brady Center to file in San Diego Federal Court

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

    Brady Center to file in San Diego Federal Court

    Must have been a National Press Release for me to get it hear on the East Coast from a local media source.


    BRADY CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE

    For Immediate Release
    Monday, October 4, 2010
    Contact: Peter Hamm, 202-289-5792, phamm@bradymail.org

    BRADY CENTER URGES FEDERAL COURT TO UPHOLD SENSIBLE CALIFORNIA GUN LAW

    Washington, D.C. – The Legal Action Project of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence filed an amicus brief today in federal court in California in defense of San Diego County’s concealed handgun permitting process in Peruta v. County of San Diego.

    The California Pistol & Rifle Association and five individuals sued San Diego County and its sheriff, claiming a constitutional right to carry loaded guns in public places, and challenging California’s "may issue" permitting process, under which law enforcement officers determine who has “good cause” to receive a permit allowing them to carry a concealed handgun in public places.

    The Brady Center argues that the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago held only that there is a Second Amendment right to possess guns in the home for self-defense, and do not require San Diego County to change its permitting process.

    “The people of California have made the reasonable decision to keep people from legally carrying loaded guns in their streets, parks, and businesses, unless law enforcement determines someone has good cause to be armed,” said Brady Center President Paul Helmke. “The Constitution does not require people to be subjected to the grave risks of more loaded guns as they go about their daily lives. The Second Amendment should not be rewritten as a mandate for the gun lobby’s ‘any gun, anywhere, for anybody’ agenda.”

    The brief was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, in support of San Diego County’s motion for summary judgment. The law firm of Hogan Lovells provided pro bono assistance.

    The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence is a national non-profit organization working to reduce gun violence in America through education, research and legal advocacy. Through its Legal Action Project, the Brady Center provides pro bono legal assistance to gun violence victims and public entities seeking to establish legal principles that will reduce gun violence. The Brady Center complements the legislative and grassroots mobilization efforts of its sister organization, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence with its dedicated network of Million Mom March Chapters.


    I'm sure the main stream media will now find the time and space to provide coverage to this case.

    The Brady's didn't have any problems with members of the Honorary Deputy Sheriff's Department receiving CCW permits. They just don't want middle Americans to exercise the same rights.

    I can't wait to see the County's response along with what the Brady Center has to say.

    Stay tuned!!
    Last edited by Edward Peruta; 10-04-2010 at 06:36 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691
    Sounds like they are whipping the same ol tired, toothless, swaybacked, sick horse they have riding for years.
    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.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Peruta;1371286
    [FONT=Arial
    The brief was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, in support of San Diego County’s motion for summary judgment. The law firm of Hogan Lovells provided pro bono assistance.[/FONT]
    Maybe some good citizens should express their gratitude to the law firm for licking the boots of the Brady Bunch!
    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

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Humboldt County, California, USA
    Posts
    22

    Still lame

    "California Pistol & Rifle Association"

    Pretty lame they can't even get California Rifle & Pistol Association's name right.

  5. #5
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    I can already imagine the Brady brief...it'll look like all their other ones. They'll overlook everything the Supremes said in Heller and McDonald, they'll reference their own statistics, they'll make emotional pleas that have no legal basis, and they'll completely ignore every piece of evidence from the time of this country's founding.

    Keep on 'em Ed, their figurative heads will look good on your mantle.

  6. #6
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660
    Because that's what works with the politicians. These tactics should not work with the judiciary. And with McDonald they have no other leg to stand on anyway.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691
    Their brief is soooo with out legal merit we should thank them for submiting it. Their other briefs were completly ignored by the judges. It definately bolsters the plaintiff's case.
    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.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Lord Sega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Warrenton, Oregon
    Posts
    317

    OMG, Brady Center again....?

    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Peruta View Post
    “The people of California have made the reasonable decision to keep people from legally carrying loaded guns in their streets, parks, and businesses, unless law enforcement determines someone has good cause to be armed,” said Brady Center President Paul Helmke.


    Good Cause only works for KNOWN threats, and only if Law Enforcement agrees, and only after you get the "Mother May I" permission card to carry. It does not work for the UNKNOWN or RANDOM threats.

    Unknown / random threats to you and your family can't be planned for. Like driving a car, my family and I always wear seat belts since you never know where or when someone may slam into you. You hope to never need seat belts or airbags, but you make sure to have them in use, just in case. Same as a sidearm... protection... just in case.

    Better to have and not need, than to need and not have.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691
    Is there a link to the fraidy brief? (fraidy, as in fraidy cats)
    Last edited by Gundude; 10-04-2010 at 11:56 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.

  10. #10
    Regular Member wewd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    664
    Quote Originally Posted by AlanR View Post
    "California Pistol & Rifle Association"

    Pretty lame they can't even get California Rifle & Pistol Association's name right.
    Just be glad they didn't cite it as California Rifles & Associated Pistols.
    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"

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    329
    Quote Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
    Is there a link to the fraidy brief? (fraidy, as in fraidy cats)
    http://www.archive.org/download/gov....08678.37.1.pdf

  12. #12
    Regular Member wildhawker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    113
    Brady: "We're still in a state of shock over Heller. McDonald, what was that again? If it didn't come with the happy meal, we didn't read it."
    Brandon Combs
    Secretary, Calguns Foundation
    Member, CRPA Board of Directors

    Join me in making regular monthly tax-deductible donations to the Calguns Foundation and help us advance gun rights in California today!

    Unless explicitly stated otherwise, all comments are my own and not the approved position of any organization, nor should they be considered legal advice.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Funtimes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
    Posts
    48
    So many omissions, poorly quoted material, and general lies in there it makes me sick lol.

    I think that document will get used for toilet paper. I'm pretty sure they get to file an opposition to Amicus brief in response to that. I imagine it will be a whopper.

  14. #14
    Regular Member RockerFor2A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lemon Grove, CA
    Posts
    145
    I was stunned to read at the very beginning their assertion that the 2nd amendment only guarantees a right to keep arms "in the home for self defense." That's absolutely absurd!!! What version of the Constitution are THEY reading?? Nowhere does it say that. I can't believe they can assert that with a straight face.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691
    The question before the court was, "do the people of DC have the right to keep a functional firearm in their home." In order to rule on it they had to decide that the 2nd amendment was an individual right, not related to the militia. Since that was the only question before the court, that was all they ruled on. The Brady bunch is spinning the decision to say that Heller didn't establish the right to carry outside the home. The Palmer case will establish that.
    Please correct me if I'm wrong. I are not a legal eagle.
    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 RockerFor2A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lemon Grove, CA
    Posts
    145
    You guys know much more about the legal cases than I do. I am just flabbergasted that they try to say that the 2A only applies inside one's home. Clearly that's not what the framers wrote nor intended. Wow.

  17. #17
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Page numbers listed are the page of the PDF file, not the page numbers on the bottom of the pages of the document.

    I nearly ruined my computer when I read "the whole gamut of of gun laws" (pg 11 line 10).....a mouthful of coke nearly destroyed my laptop.......

    High falutin lawyers they got thar......"Gamut", slang, a word used by lawyers who got their JD's from a crackerjack box. ...... an appropriate term might have been "range" (no pun intended).


    Pg 12, line 5/6....I didn't know that law enforcement established "important governmental interests".....aren't they the ones that enforce the laws no determine what is an important interest? (okay I know, we're talking theory here).


    Page 12, lines 27/28.....The fraidys (I liked that) themselves say in theri Amicus that the SCOTUS opinion in Heller focuses on .....the right of individuals "to keep and bear amrs to defend their homes, families, or themselves". Hmmm if "themselves" is out and about........ Amicus tossed.


    WOW Page 13, lines 1-5....the fraidys have finaly admitted (after getting their butts handed to them) that the DC ban was unconstitutional......is that what they said pre Heller/McDonald? Did they say that post Heller/McDonald before this amicus (I'm betting NOT).


    Page 15, lines 22-25....they cite two post civil war, 1871 and 1876 (disarm the African Americanes) state regulations AND the 1871 regulation allowed ONLY open carry of the Army and Navy pistol IN THE HAND......there's an interesting youtube video of a guy who recently did that out there and the cops had a tizzy.....perfectly legal and still on the books in the town he did it in. So the Fraidy's want us to carry our pistols in our hands, that's the problem.

    Man what a crock. LOL

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    The Brady Amicus Brief

    Quote Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
    Is there a link to the fraidy brief? (fraidy, as in fraidy cats)
    http://ctgunrights.com/00.ca.docs/10...us%20Brief.pdf

    I will be posting all of the documents filed at www.cagunrights.com.

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran Bookman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Winston Salem, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    1,424
    I started to read the brief. I only got about a page and a half into it before nausea prevented me from going any farther.
    "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke


    "I like people who stand on the Constitution... unless they're using it to wipe their feet." - Jon E Hutcherson

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Humboldt County, California, USA
    Posts
    22
    “The people of California, more than 80 years ago, [1] have made the reasonable decision to keep Mexican and Chinese people from legally carrying loaded guns in their streets, parks, and businesses, unless law enforcement determines someone has good cause to be armed,” said Brady Center President Paul Helmke.
    There, fixed it for him.

    As for the rest, they acknowledge the parts of Heller they can't ignore ("in the home") and ignore the the key parts ("such as, in the home"). They always have trouble with those pesky clause modifiers.

    [1] http://old.californiaccw.org/files/s...le-article.htm

  21. #21
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691
    If you were a lawyer, would you put your name on that brief? Speaks volumes on the integrity of some lawyers.
    Last edited by Gundude; 10-05-2010 at 02:41 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.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691
    Fraidy's 2nd amendment....The right to hunt ducks in your house shall not be infringed.
    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.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Regarding the Nov. 1st hearing date

    For those who may have been planning to attend the Federal Court Hearing on November 1st, I'd like to let you know that the hearing more than likely will take place later in November.

    On this particular topic, I feel confident providing information received from my attorneys.

    Regardless of when it is held it should be entertaining and educational.

  24. #24
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660
    Quote Originally Posted by wewd View Post
    Just be glad they didn't cite it as California Rifles & Associated Pistols.
    LOL! That's funny.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Hearing date changed from Nov. 1st to Nov. 15th

    IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ Joint Motion to Amend the Briefing
    Schedule is GRANTED. The parties shall file their motions in accordance with the dates
    stipulated to and set forth in the parties’ joint motion, and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment shall be heard in this Court on November 15, 2010 at 10:30 am.

    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    DATED: October 6, 2010
    IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge
    United States District Court
    Case 3:09-cv-02371-IEG -BGS Document 42 Filed 10/06/10 Page 2 of 2

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •