• 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.

Food for thought

Edward Peruta

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

Can the County of San Diego have and maintain a confidential ATTORNEY CLIENT RELATIONSHIP with the Brady Center and their attorneys and withhold information about the relationship based a claim of ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE?

Does any type of attorney client relationship between The County of San Diego and the Brady Center effect the Brady center’s ability to file an Amicus brief in Peruta v. San Diego?

This is a link to the information that started me thinking about this topic.

http://www.bradycenter.org/xshare/pdf/lap/cases/currentdocket.pdf

Peruta v. County of San Diego, No. 09-CV-2371 IEG (BLM) (U.S. District Court, Southern Districtof California)

The Brady Center is assisting the County of San Diego in this case, brought by the California Rifle &Pistol Association and five individual plaintiffs, challenging the validity of San Diego’s handgun permitprocess. William Gore, Sheriff of San Diego County, is a named defendant, as well as San DiegoCounty.

Plaintiffs claim that the application requirements for a concealed carry handgun permit are so high thatthey are illegal and unconstitutional. The permit process includes a criminal background check andcompletion of a handgun training course. Applicants are then assessed for good moral character andwhether they have good cause to carry a concealed weapon; plaintiffs claim this is a violation of theSecond and Fourteenth Amendments, the Equal Protection Clause, and California Penal Code section
12050, because it is dependent upon the discretion of the issuing authority and is not consistentthroughout the state.

Plaintiffs are asking for permanent injunctive relief against the requirement of showing good cause when requesting a concealed carry handgun permit.

Amicus curiae

An amicus curiae (also spelled amicus curiæ; plural amici curiae) is someone, not a party to a case, who volunteers to offer information to assist a court in deciding a matter before it. The information provided may be a legal opinion in the form of a brief (which is called an amicus brief when offered by an amicus curiae), a testimony that has not been solicited by any of the parties, or a learned treatise on a matter that bears on the case. The decision on whether to admit the information lies at the discretion of the court. The phrase amicus curiae is legal Latin and literally means "friend of the court".

A] phrase that literally means 'friend of the court' – someone who is not a party to the litigation, but who believes that the court's decision may affect its interest.
 
Last edited:
Top