Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 46

Thread: LA county CCW lawsuit filed

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran EXTREMEOPS1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Escondido CA
    Posts
    248

    LA county CCW lawsuit filed

    This is one of the "First Shots" in the War on our Freedoms.

    Given that the lawyer has posted it on his website for the world to see,
    no harm posting the link now.

    His sole interest is in obtaining a CCW and not to make a 2nd
    Amendment case out of it by challenging the legality of any statute or
    provision thereof.

    This is a simple 14th Amendment type case. Anyone in
    the 9th Circuit can file an equivalent case in their district.
    Fortunately, a lawyer beat us to it. If he wins, we all win as his
    victory is applicable to everyone in the Federal Central District of
    California. If he loses, it doesn't affect us one bit because it does
    not set a precedent.

    Ain't Declaratory Judgments grand?


    http://www.jonbirdt.com/images/filed047.pdf
    "There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time."

    - General George S. Patton, Jr.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691
    I think this one is a Pro Per suit. I don't know if he is a lawyer. I saw him posting on CalCCW about it. The big guys are watching it.
    Last edited by Gundude; 11-02-2010 at 06:28 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.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Coded-Dude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Roseville
    Posts
    317
    wouldn't this apply to everyone(not just those in the central district)? i'm not clear on how case law would affect other federal districts.
    If guns cause crime.....mine must be defective.

  4. #4
    Regular Member mjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SoCal, , USA
    Posts
    979
    Quote Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
    I think this one is a Pro Per suit. I saw him posting on CalCCW about it. The big guys are watching it.
    Yes, definately a Pro Per suit see Box I(a)

    ...sadly already with some errors in his documents...

    edit to add: though apparantly he is a lawyer.
    Last edited by mjones; 11-02-2010 at 06:29 PM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691
    My local gun store owner said he was a lawyer. I schooled him about UOC, and some other gun laws. Maybe he is a divorce lawyer?
    I hope this isn't one of the lawsuits that Alan Gura mentioned. Illconceived, ill timed, by someone that doesn't know what they are doing.
    Last edited by Gundude; 11-02-2010 at 06:40 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.

  6. #6
    Regular Member mjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SoCal, , USA
    Posts
    979
    Quote Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
    My local gun store owner said he was a lawyer. I schooled him about UOC, and some other gun laws. Maybe he is a divorce lawyer?
    I hope this isn't one of the lawsuits that Alan Gura mentioned. Illconceived, ill timed, by someone that doesn't know what they are doing.
    Definately a lawyer according to the suit and to his resume ... http://www.jonbirdt.com/resume.html

    Considering a 5th grader could likely correctly fill out a court cover sheet, I don't have my hopes up too high.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691
    On that other site, I posted a link to Gura's speech. He came back and said Gura wasn't the be all to end all and that he was going ahead with his suit. It really bothers me that people won't listen to the experts. Sounds like he has a bad case of arrogance syndrome.
    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 mjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SoCal, , USA
    Posts
    979
    Quote Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
    On that other site, I posted a link to Gura's speech. He came back and said Gura wasn't the be all to end all and that he was going ahead with his suit. It really bothers me that people won't listen to the experts. Sounds like he has a bad case of arrogance syndrome.
    I completely understand the guys frustration...and his willingness to try to do something about it.

    My current hope/desire is that he links up with the CGF/CRPA in some fashion.

  9. #9
    kittyhawk63
    Guest
    The Sheriff and Chief of Police determined their refusal based on the failure to produce "good cause" since he could not show "imminent threat."

    Oh I see, it takes imminent threat. OK, I am being held up at gun point and I remember the reason for the refusal of CCW. I say to the person causing "imminent threat" to my well-being to wait until I get back. I need to go and call the Chief of Police and the Sheriff to come and see my "imminent threat." Then they will issue me a CCW and you can continue to rob me...if I don't first try to stop you with my firearm.

    This is crazy thinking. Every American is potentially in imminent threat. That is why LEOs carry. They don't know when threat will come but it is always potentially imminent. They are prepared for it. We are not. They don't want us to be. They are our "protectors." Bah, humbug. LEOs are never there when you need them. They are always arriving at the scene after the dastardly deed is done.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2

    As the old adage goes...

    "A lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client."

    That pretty much sums up the idiocy of this lawsuit.
    Last edited by foghlai; 11-03-2010 at 01:42 PM.

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Open letter to Jon Birdt....

    Jon,

    My name is Gray Peterson, and just to give you my bona fides I have done for 2A and gun rights:

    1) I am the plaintiff in Peterson v. LaCabe, a RKBA/right to travel case in Colorado, a state which has conceded that concealed carry for the purpose of self defense. You can look at my signature line and see it for yourself.

    2) I am one of the plaintiffs in Chan et al v. City of Seattle et al, a state court case which successfully challenged and struck down the City of Seattle (WA)'s guns in parks rule.

    3) I am one of the Project Coordinators for the Firearms License Reform and Education Program, a group of individual volunteers who are working on fixing the policies of all 58 counties, including Los Angeles County and their unlawful policies in terms of requiring you to apply to your city of residency first.

    4) I was the original founder of the modern Open Carry movement in Washington State and in Oregon. Washington State had continual horrific police contacts until I did the research into the state law that the LEO's were citing for their harassment of open carriers and determined that the law was never meant to apply to peaceable open carry. Oregon had it disappear due to shall-issue, but it was brought back more widely.

    5) Despite residing in Washington State, my second part to full time job is helping California residents with the above project and answering questions (which I don't get paid to do). I have family and close friends who live in California and who have benefited from my subject matter expertise on California's carry law.

    Mr. Birdt, as you probably can figure out, I am skeptical of your lawsuit (which you're filing pro per) will be helpful to the cause of getting california PC12050 licenses shall-issue. I respect the fact that your rights have been violated. A few things I ask that you consider before you file (I checked PACER before PM'ing me here).

    Also, a warning, I do not speak for Calguns Foundation as I am not a director. My own knowledge on the subject is based on my own litigations as well as my knowledge of the Perry case (which is directly applicable here to the relief you're asking for).

    First. A federal district court ruling on a state statute is valid and has statewide effect. See Perry v. Schwarzenneger. Before the 9th Circuit put in a stay on the judgement in that case, every county in the state was preparing to issue marriage licenses to same gendered couples. It wasn't merely limited to the Northern District of California jurisdiction.

    You stated that you intended to file a motion for summary judgement once Peruta or Richards goes through. This the incorrect method of dealing with LA being recalcitrant, assuming of course that Richards or Peruta do not make it to the 9th Circuit after the plaintiffs win (the two defendants could decide to throw in the towel at that point). When you ask for an MSJ, you are asking for an independent decision on the law by whoever is assigned to your case as a judge. Again, see Perry.

  12. #12
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711
    Quote Originally Posted by EXTREMEOPS1 View Post
    This is one of the "First Shots" in the War on our Freedoms.
    This is a simple 14th Amendment type case. Anyone in
    the 9th Circuit can file an equivalent case in their district.
    Fortunately, a lawyer beat us to it. If he wins, we all win as his
    victory is applicable to everyone in the Federal Central District of
    California. If he loses, it doesn't affect us one bit because it does
    not set a precedent. http://www.jonbirdt.com/images/filed047.pdf
    Huh?

    "no" precedent? Yeah right - other state and federal courts cite to and often follow trial court rulings - and if the ruling goes bad for us, for any number of reasons, then subsequent courts will likley do same.

    Strategic litigation means cases, plaintiffs, and venue chosen carefully, and managed by skilled attorneys.

    pro-se cases are the LAST thing we need right now - they are the biggest threat to development of sound Second Amendment law.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Porter Ranch
    Posts
    7
    The Policy in LA county is that there is evidence of a clear and present threat or danger. My goal is to change that. None of the groups were willing to take on LA County. Peruta won't have any effect on LA until it comes back from the 9th Circuit, but Nordyke will, and much sooner. With the reality that Central District litigation was at least 3 years away I decided to educate myself, reach out the the groups, meet with the lawyers and file the lawsuit. I have and continue to offer to pay the filing fee and donate my time to a more qualified plaintiff willing to step up, but until them, and not wanting to wait another 3-4 years, I filed this suit.

  14. #14
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    I wish you the best of luck with your case Jon.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Roseville, California, USA
    Posts
    486

    I concur.

    Quote Originally Posted by bigtoe416 View Post
    I wish you the best of luck with your case Jon.
    +1

    markm

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    281

    Good Luck

    I also wish you good fortune with your case. The only thing that will bring change to LA County/City CCW policies will be lawsuits. Look at Sacramento's latest . It just was going to become very expensive to defend and wiser county officials than the sheriff prevailed. Now Sacramento is where every county should be as a "shall issue" county. The lawsuit was the only reason for this much needed change.

    It is only a matter of time (and winning lawsuits), that Los Angeles will be dragged into the real world. Maybe Jon's efforts will help speed this up, or be a prevailing case. The LA officials involved will do everything possible defending their non-issuance CCW polices to keep the local populace disarmed and undefended against criminals to promote large police department staff/budgets to "defend us from the criminal element", and of course" save the children".
    Last edited by oc4ever; 11-17-2010 at 03:41 PM.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Porter Ranch
    Posts
    7
    Here is the First Amended Complaint:
    http://www.jonbirdt.com/images/Birdt...FAC-_final.pdf

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    281
    Jon, Your amended complaint seems more clear, concise and to the point from a laymen point of view .. As the San Diego Peralta case has shown, I am sure favoritism will be the rule of the day when you do your discovery at LASD, and that the law is not applied evenly or fairly for CCW permit issuance. Since LAPD has almost no permits , the ones they have issued should also be interesting for what constitutes good cause.

    Thank you for spending your time on this matter.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Susanville, California, USA
    Posts
    529
    Good luck Jon +1 Robin47

  20. #20
    Regular Member mjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SoCal, , USA
    Posts
    979

    Status Update

    Birdt loses in federal court
    Attached Files Attached Files

  21. #21
    Regular Member Save Our State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    The Golden State
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by mjones View Post
    Birdt loses in federal court
    Holy death by a thousand bites batman.....
    The court has found an excuse for everything, little by little.
    But this tells us how they feel about our individualism, and any right to self defense; We don't have any, and don't deserve any.

    Important Government Objective”
    It is clear that the protection of public health and safety are important government objectives,
    Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 475 (1996), as is crime prevention, Foucha v. Louisiana, 504
    U.S. 71, 81 (1992). In considering California’s concealed weapons regulations, the Peruta court
    noted:
    In particular, the government has an important interest in reducing the number of
    concealed weapons in public in order to reduce the risks to other members of the
    public who use the streets and go to public accommodations. The government also
    has an important interest in reducing the number of concealed handguns in public
    because of their disproportionate involvement in life-threatening crimes of violence,
    particularly in streets and other public places

  22. #22
    Regular Member DocWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,968
    The government also has an important interest in reducing the number of concealed handguns in public
    because of their disproportionate involvement in life-threatening crimes of violence,
    particularly in streets and other public places

    ?????
    What the heck, can they back this statement up with facts? How about a list of all law abiding CC carriers that have used their weapon to MURDER and not self defense. I don't think there is a DISPROPORTIONATE invollement like they site, more likely the goverment is getting to big for their own pants.

    I don't think it will be long before something happens to slap the goverment down if they keep this crap up.

  23. #23
    Regular Member mjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SoCal, , USA
    Posts
    979
    Quote Originally Posted by DocWalker View Post
    What the heck, can they back this statement up with facts?
    With the current level of established level of constitutional scrutiny ... no, they don't.

    There are many reasons why this lawsuit was a 'bad idea', but one of the most important problems was/is timing. Essential items need to occur, in order to topple unconstitutional laws.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Save Our State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    The Golden State
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by mjones View Post
    With the current level of established level of constitutional scrutiny ... no, they don't.

    There are many reasons why this lawsuit was a 'bad idea', but one of the most important problems was/is timing. Essential items need to occur, in order to topple unconstitutional laws.
    What timing? How long has Mulford act been in effect? I am troubled at the thought of putting all the eggs in the judicial branch basket, and having only a select few claim they are the only ones with enough sense to carry that basket. I don't know this guy Birdt, or his client, but at least they are doing something. So many are doing nothing, and now we have some people telling the rest of us that we should either get behind them, or do nothing as well.

  25. #25
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Save Our State View Post
    What timing? How long has Mulford act been in effect? I am troubled at the thought of putting all the eggs in the judicial branch basket, and having only a select few claim they are the only ones with enough sense to carry that basket. I don't know this guy Birdt, or his client, but at least they are doing something. So many are doing nothing, and now we have some people telling the rest of us that we should either get behind them, or do nothing as well.
    In response to the bolded; A fart in a bathtub doesnt make it a Jacuzzi. This is where those who have been following the progress of the 2A in jurisprudence will tell you that doing something for the sake of making something happen is not necessarily valuable. In order to see real progress, California MUST have the individual right to own and carry recognized in a meaningful way before reform can occur. Just like one cannot randomly select a piece to move on a chess board, you cannot arbitrarily select any gun related issue you want to challenge and just file a lawsuit.

    There are already pieces in play on the 2A chessboard that have been waiting- Nordyke, Richards v Prieto, and Richards v Harris all enjoy the glacial and ponderous timetable of judicial promptness. Nordyke has been in the pipe for more than a decade- but eventually, the California courts will have to address it and abide by SCOTUS precidence in Heller and McDonald... or not. (And subsequently, get slapped by the supremes.)

    Other than timing, there is also venue. One cannot simply move his chess pieces around in whatever squares they want, or they will lose their pieces by defenses already established as anti-gun, and will decide in favor of their own interests. You have to ask yourself why anyone would pursue a case in a district that has no constructionist judges. Birdt apparently didnt, and the result is wasted effort, time, and resources. It's like sending a 5'2" center against a 7'3" power forward- you're just asking for the defender to slap your layup away.

    It's boring, but the way gun owners win this game is from the free throw line. We get fouled in the right places and the right times, our players put up points one at a time on an undefendable goal. In the end, these points count more than the full court three-point attempts that end in air balls.
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •