Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Strategy, Tactics, and Peruta ruling by Judge Gonzales.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Roseville, California, USA
    Posts
    486

    Strategy, Tactics, and Peruta ruling by Judge Gonzales.

    Hello All,

    As I was reading the Peruta summary judgement, I kept thinking to myself, who is litigating this for the plaintiff?

    Do they understand the judicial temperment of our current supreme court? Do they review case law? Do they know how to use strategy and tactics to accomplish a legal goal?

    I am stunned, shocked, and amazed.

    Before I go further, I want to thank Mr. Peruta for attempting this lawsuit as a named plaintiff. Thank you sir, for you are a patriot.

    I am sorry that your legal team was inept.

    Judge Gonzales did what she was supposed to do when considering a complaint. She went above her call of duty and explained how we can further protect and regain our right to bear arms. I FEEL that she knows that Associate Justice Kennedy of SCOTUS, will not go for "strict scrutiny" when ejudicating the carrying of guns in public places, again, my FEELING!

    She did her homework.

    Case law and regulatory schemes from most states, both recent and old, give three choices for carrying a weapon in public. UOC, or LOC, or with a "shall issue" CCW.

    The lame-duck governor of Wisconsin has vetoed legislation for CCW (shall issue) because LOC is legal in Wisconsin. Notwithstanding, Wisconsin LOC law has come under fire for being poorly written and unevenly enforced, but the citizens of Wisconsin are supposed to have a regulatory scheme that allows for RKBA.

    In Kalifornia, we have 12031. However, we also have 629, which seems to make the regulatory scheme unconstitutional.

    If 629 were stricken as an unconstitutional statute vis-a-vi California's regulatory scheme for public carry of weapons, I believe Justice Kennedy would rule that 12031 is constitutional by using "intermediate scrutiny." Again, my FEELING!

    Stategy and Tactics.

    Who was the tactician for this case? Whoever you are, you blew it. 629 and 12031 should have been brought into this case as California's regulatory scheme must be ruled constitutional or unconstitutional as a COMPLETE governmental regulatory scheme.

    I believe, when SCOTUS rules on the public carry of weapons by law abiding citizens, states will be given the option to allow UOC, or LOC, or "shall issue" CCW. However, states like AZ, AK, and all others, may allow all three. In order for the regulatory scheme to be constitutional, a state must codify as legal, just one option.

    This is my opinion based on the reality of our situation. YOU MAY NOT LIKE MY OPINION BASED ON REALITY, BUT IT IS REALITY! Forget about the philosophical arguments about RKBA.

    As a student of Strategy and tactics, we must start by gettting a ruling from SCOTUS that creates case law for a regulatory scheme that allows LOC, or "shall issue" CCW, or both if the state in question so chooses.

    Cornwalis had a good strategy for ending the Revolutionary War. But, Cornwalis' tactical awareness sucked. Washington chose a strategy that allowed for MANY tactical losses, but in the end, Lafayette, the French navy, and Washington's army surrounded Cornwalis at Yorktown. It was the de facto end of the Revolutionary War. After many tactical losses during the campaign, Washington proved himself to be a strategic genius.

    Statgey and tactics matter!

    How do you eat an elephant, one bite at a time.

    Big Toe: Your lawsuit should be part of a larger strategy. We need some real legal experts to help you get your tactical lawsuit combined with a strategic plan that can take you to SCOTUS. You are smarter than the so-called experts!

    markm

  2. #2
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkBofRAdvocate View Post
    Big Toe: Your lawsuit should be part of a larger strategy. We need some real legal experts to help you get your tactical lawsuit combined with a strategic plan that can take you to SCOTUS. You are smarter than the so-called experts!
    Thanks. I agree that a multi-pronged approach would probably be best. The Peruta ruling seems to indicate that the calguns approach of obtaining shall-issue CCWs first, and open carry later may be incorrect. There is ample language in Heller which disparages concealed carry, while praising open carry. While this is great for the open carriers, it puts the CGF in a bind. If states can regulate concealed carry how they wish, then we should be focusing on 12031 and 626.9 first. Once people come to accept that LOC is a constitutional right, they'll probably begin to ask why people can't cover their weapons up. The legislature could then step in and answer the prayers of the anti-gunners (who don't want to see the guns) and the pro-gunners (who just want more rights) and change 12050 to be shall issue with a low barrier to entry.

    Of course, this is just my opinion, and I'm sure the right people disagree with me, but if concealed weapon cases continue to be lost in the courts then they will have no further recourse but to alter their plan.

    Hopefully the cases currently underway can collectively point us in the proper direction.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Roseville, California, USA
    Posts
    486

    Lex Parsimone (SP)

    Quote Originally Posted by bigtoe416 View Post
    Thanks. I agree that a multi-pronged approach would probably be best. The Peruta ruling seems to indicate that the calguns approach of obtaining shall-issue CCWs first, and open carry later may be incorrect. There is ample language in Heller which disparages concealed carry, while praising open carry. While this is great for the open carriers, it puts the CGF in a bind. If states can regulate concealed carry how they wish, then we should be focusing on 12031 and 626.9 first. Once people come to accept that LOC is a constitutional right, they'll probably begin to ask why people can't cover their weapons up. The legislature could then step in and answer the prayers of the anti-gunners (who don't want to see the guns) and the pro-gunners (who just want more rights) and change 12050 to be shall issue with a low barrier to entry.

    Of course, this is just my opinion, and I'm sure the right people disagree with me, but if concealed weapon cases continue to be lost in the courts then they will have no further recourse but to alter their plan.

    Hopefully the cases currently underway can collectively point us in the proper direction.
    Big Toe,

    You said succinctly what took me hundreds of words and I still did not get the point across.

    +1

    markm

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238
    Quote Originally Posted by bigtoe416 View Post
    Thanks. I agree that a multi-pronged approach would probably be best. The Peruta ruling seems to indicate that the calguns approach of obtaining shall-issue CCWs first, and open carry later may be incorrect. There is ample language in Heller which disparages concealed carry, while praising open carry. While this is great for the open carriers, it puts the CGF in a bind. If states can regulate concealed carry how they wish, then we should be focusing on 12031 and 626.9 first.
    If that's the case, then how come your case is focused on asking for a permission slip from the SFUSD? If the underlying statute is unconstitutional, why not just go after that?

    Also, it wasn't a CGF case nor was it the CGF approach. CGF would never file in the Southern District of California on a carry licensing case.

    Once people come to accept that LOC is a constitutional right, they'll probably begin to ask why people can't cover their weapons up. The legislature could then step in and answer the prayers of the anti-gunners (who don't want to see the guns)
    At this point, you may have just stopped reading, but kudos if you didn't:

    You forget the social bigotry aspects of your equation. "Oh, at least we see who has the guns, and we can just pressure the private businesses to ban guns". You keep thinking that California will end up like Arizona some day. It won't. What you're asking for is akin to asking the Alabama Legislature circa 1950 to desegregate voluntarily.

    and the pro-gunners (who just want more rights) and change 12050 to be shall issue with a low barrier to entry.[/U]
    This legislature, nor any legislature no matter how much the pro-gun side can muster, will be able to pass a shall-issue bill without numerous restrictions. Your "Ohio" method of dealing with things forgets several important factors, being that the concealed carry bill passed in Ohio, HB12, made the licenses entirely worthless. You had to open carry in your car at all times, or you'd be convicted of a felony. It also had very stringent firearm protocol which made it quite insane.

    Read the bill for yourself:

    http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/b...m?ID=125_HB_12

    That, my friends, is the California way of doing things, exported to Ohio, if it even can be politically done. You'd have opposition to coming from both sides, and you're talking about socially engineering in a state which has been steeped in anti-gun radicalism in one form or another for almost 9 decades.

    I'm an open carrier. I'd love to be able to open carry in the middle of the Mission or Castro Districts in San Francisco and have the choice to do so. What I won't do, however, pursue a line of legal reasoning where a person cannot make a choice to carry concealed when their personal circumstances dictate.

    I'm also understand, however, that my mentality is an outlier. Many people who would carry will just flat out refuse to carry if they can't carry concealed. In Florida, it took a 4'10" grandmother pushing the legislature for years to be able carry a handgun in her purse while she's out and about in the city to be able to defend her grandchildren when she was out with them Open carry was not an option for her. I also don't think that subjecting a large percentage of women (who's typical clothing choices exclude potential OC options) for years going on decades to no true carry options for them while California acclimatizes to open carry and "finally sees the light" is clearly not an option. Hard to open carry in a purse. The cost of our daughters, sisters, wives and girlfriends continuing to be maimed, raped, and slaughtered is not worth it at any price, especially when some workplaces require certain kinds of attire for women.....

    Of course, this is just my opinion, and I'm sure the right people disagree with me, but if concealed weapon cases continue to be lost in the courts then they will have no further recourse but to alter their plan.

    Hopefully the cases currently underway can collectively point us in the proper direction.
    You forget State of Wisconsin v. Joshua Schultz, which struck down Wisconsin's concealed weapons ban. There's also ten civil carry cases that have been filed, including Richards, that can come to the opposite conclusion as the Peruta.

    Kachalsky v. Cacace: Filed in the state of New York, which only allows concealed carry with a license, open carry is disallowed in public (license is for to have and carry concealed). This was filed in the White Plains office of the Southern District of New York, rather than Manhattan. Coincidence?

    Woollard v. Sheridan: Filed in the state of Maryland, which doesn't allow either open or concealed carry without a permit to wear a handgun.

    Muller v. Manza: Filed in the state of New Jersey, which doesn't allow either method of carry without a permit to carry handguns.

    Bateman v. Perdue: Filed in the state of North Carolina, which broadly bans any firearms carry during states of emergency, which is common throughout the year and encompasses the entire state.
    Last edited by Gray Peterson; 12-14-2010 at 02:22 AM.

Posting Permissions

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