• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Brady Center to file in San Diego Federal Court

Edward Peruta

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
1,247
Location
Connecticut USA
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:

Gundude

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
1,691
Location
Sandy Eggo County
Sounds like they are whipping the same ol tired, toothless, swaybacked, sick horse they have riding for years.
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
Edward Peruta;1371286 [FONT=Arial said:
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!
 

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
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.
 

Gundude

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
1,691
Location
Sandy Eggo County
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.
 

Lord Sega

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2010
Messages
311
Location
Warrenton, Oregon
OMG, Brady Center again....?

“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.
 

wewd

Regular Member
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
664
Location
Oregon
"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.
 

wildhawker

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
113
Location
California, USA
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."
 

Funtimes

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
48
Location
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
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.
 

RockerFor2A

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
145
Location
Lemon Grove, CA
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.
 

Gundude

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
1,691
Location
Sandy Eggo County
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.
 

RockerFor2A

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
145
Location
Lemon Grove, CA
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.
 

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,221
Location
White City, Oregon, USA
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 negroes) 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
 

AlanR

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Messages
22
Location
Humboldt County, California, USA
“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/sf-chronicle-article.htm
 
Top