Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Documents filed with Federal Court on 10.18.10

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

    Documents filed with Federal Court on 10.18.10

    For those interested, PDF documents have been downloaded from Pacer and posted on the www.cagunrights.com webpage.

    Here is a portion of what is filed:

    B. There Are No Material Factual Disputes Regarding HDSA Member's Unequal
    Treatment

    The County's response to Plaintiffs' allegations of favoritism in issuing CCWs is convoluted. It claims the documentation it requires for renewal applications "is not held to the same scrutiny" as thatfor initial applications. (Opp. 23:5-12.) It then argues that the Plaintiffs whose initial applications were denied are not similarly situated to HDSA members whose renewal application files lack supporting documentation, and it is thus not a fair comparison by Plaintiffs. (Opp. 23:12-19.) However, while the County may subject the evidentiary support for a renewal to lesser scrutiny — and even that may be improper — it definitely cannot subject the underlying "good cause" to less scrutiny. Yet, that is what it does. For example, one HDSA member provided as his "good cause" that he drives in desolate areaswith his wife and wants "self-defense against anyone that might come" upon them.(See Ex. "N".) This is almost identical to Plaintiff Peruta's reason. Another example 29 is a letter addressed to Sheriff Gore from an HDSA member who had been denied a renewal CCW. The letter was dated October 13, 2009.
    After the author mentions his 19 year HDSA membership, he states: "I ask you [Sheriff Gore] intercede in the process and direct the Licensing division to reissue my CCW." On October 22, 2009, that HDSA member reapplied asserting "self-protection, a desire to be able to protect myself and my family from criminal activity, in case response to request to law enforcement is delayed" as his "good cause." He provided no documentation of a specific threat, but was issued a CCW none the less.(See Ex. "L".)3°

    The County provides a declaration from Ms. Blanca Pelowitz, Manager of the License Division,stating that HDSA members are not favored in any way by the County in receiving CCWs. (PelowitzDecl. 7:8-9.) But, the credibility of Ms. Pelowitz is dubious when notes with her initials are found inCCW files stating: "Commander for HDSA (SDSO) considered VIP @ sheriff level — okay to renewstandard personal protection."(See Ex. "M".) This note shows Ms. Pelowtiz was being instructed to give preferential treatment to at least some HDSA members.'

  2. #2
    Regular Member RockerFor2A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lemon Grove, CA
    Posts
    145
    You get 'em, Ed! It's a beautiful thing. I especially enjoyed page 13 of the "Opposition..." document. It's absurd that the county tries to suggest that they're screening out people who are going through the hassle of obtaining a CCW, because despite having no record, they're planning to commit a crime with a gun, but they want to be carrying legally on the way to knock over a convenience store (presumably to recoup the money they spent on the permit fees?)!!

    It is beyond ludicrous. The analogy to a bank robber refusing to pull a heist until he has a proper drivers license to legally drive to the bank perfectly illustrated the absurdity of this.

    It's amazing they can offer up these arguments with a straight face.

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

    For those that want to keep abreast of what is happening

    DOCUMENTS FILED IN FEDERAL COURT
    ON OCTOBER 18, 2010

    Links to these documents may be found at www.cagunrights.com
    YOU MAY EVEN BE ABLE TO GO DIRECTLY FROM THE BLUE LINKS IN THIS POST



    10.18.10 Plaintiffs Consolidated Opposition and Reply
    10.18.10 Plaintiff's Reply to Defendant's Motion
    10.18.10 Declaration of Brian Patrick
    10.18.10 Declaration of Carlisle Moody
    10.18.10 Declaration of Edward Peruta
    10.18.10 Declaration of Gary Mauser
    10.18.10 Declaration of Sean Brady
    10.18.10 Application to file Amicus
    10.18.10 Proposed Amicus
    Last edited by Edward Peruta; 10-20-2010 at 06:15 AM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    542
    Ed,
    Thank you for keeping us updated, many of us think about your case many times a week, and we are glad to see this development.

    As always my support and wellwishing to you.

  5. #5
    State Researcher lockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Elgin, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    1,202

    Exhibits?

    What is the sensitive nature of the exhibits files under seal?

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by RockerFor2A View Post
    You get 'em, Ed! It's a beautiful thing. I especially enjoyed page 13 of the "Opposition..." document. It's absurd that the county tries to suggest that they're screening out people who are going through the hassle of obtaining a CCW, because despite having no record, they're planning to commit a crime with a gun, but they want to be carrying legally on the way to knock over a convenience store (presumably to recoup the money they spent on the permit fees?)!!

    It is beyond ludicrous. The analogy to a bank robber refusing to pull a heist until he has a proper drivers license to legally drive to the bank perfectly illustrated the absurdity of this.

    It's amazing they can offer up these arguments with a straight face.
    hilarious. what idiots. great work Ed!

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    "Gang Bangers in San Diego County"

    For many reasons, including respect for those who have asked me not to post or reveal information, I do not post often in the California forums. (it's enought that I put info up at www.cagunrights.com)

    But I feel comfortable posting factual information like links to documents I purchase on the Federal Court's PACER legal site so others don't have to pay the download fees.

    I feel safe saying this, which is only a tid bit of the facts that could possibly be exposed in this case.

    In response to the quoted post below, I will add this:

    What the county was afraid to memorialize in writing is the fact that their original reason which was made known to me early on was much more lively.

    The county didn't want "GANG BANGERS" with no criminal records applying for and receiving CCWs.

    I'm sure they tried to be politically correct when they wrote their brief.

    Quote Originally Posted by RockerFor2A View Post
    You get 'em, Ed! It's a beautiful thing. I especially enjoyed page 13 of the "Opposition..." document. It's absurd that the county tries to suggest that they're screening out people who are going through the hassle of obtaining a CCW, because despite having no record, they're planning to commit a crime with a gun, but they want to be carrying legally on the way to knock over a convenience store (presumably to recoup the money they spent on the permit fees?)!!

    It is beyond ludicrous. The analogy to a bank robber refusing to pull a heist until he has a proper drivers license to legally drive to the bank perfectly illustrated the absurdity of this.

    It's amazing they can offer up these arguments with a straight face.
    Last edited by Edward Peruta; 10-20-2010 at 09:16 PM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member leoffensive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    San Diego, California, USA
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Peruta View Post


    The county didn't want "GANG BANGERS" with no criminal record applying for and receiving CCWs.

    pardon my french but WHAT A BUNCH OF MOTHERF***ING ********!!!!!!

    haha so stupid.... what is wrong with the county?

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    204

    Whay say you?

    Here's a challenge. Stop being a gun owner and 2Aadvocate and pretend you are a CA federal judge. Based on history of rulings in the PRK, and reading these documents, how would you rule?

  10. #10
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691
    Someone may shout fire in a theatre, so everyone in the theatre should wear a gag.
    I don't think so.
    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
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    281

    SD has it backwards

    Using San Diego Sheriff logic=====

    Someone *may in the future* drive recklessly or drunk, so don't issue them drivers license, or suspend the licenses of the ones that "look" like they could be gangbangers. We know all the people would then follow the law and not drive without a license, just like many irresponsible/criminals with no licenses or insurance to drive do now, right.......??? I bet if San Diego set the maximum speed limit to 5 miles per hour, traffic deaths would go way down. They would then continue keeping the speed even lower "for the kids".

    Same old backward logic. Criminals don't care about CCW/open carry laws, they think if they get arrested, they just were unlucky to get caught. 1000 foot School zones only meaning to criminals is that they are just easy places to sell drugs in, and any potential victims are not supposed to be armed.
    Last edited by oc4ever; 10-22-2010 at 01:30 AM.

  12. #12
    Guest
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    958
    The county didn't want "GANG BANGERS" with no criminal records applying for and receiving CCWs.
    And California residents wonder why the rest of the country labels California as the land of fruits, nuts and flakes.

  13. #13
    Regular Member RockerFor2A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lemon Grove, CA
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by GWbiker View Post
    And California residents wonder why the rest of the country labels California as the land of fruits, nuts and flakes.
    Haha! I've never wondered. And as it gets worse, the SANE are moving away from the madness. Or at least we were until our property values went to hell in a handbasket.

Posting Permissions

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