Edward Peruta
Regular Member
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.'
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.'