Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Richards v Prieto - Reply brief

  1. #1
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Sandy Eggo County

    Richards v Prieto - Reply brief

    Feb 24, 2011 Plaintiffs file response opposing defendant's Motion for Summary Judgement.

    Oral arguments Mar 10, 2011
    Last edited by Gundude; 02-25-2011 at 01:21 AM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    San Diego, California, United States
    One hell of a good reply to the Defendant's motion for summary judgement.

  3. #3
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Shasta County, California, USA
    ii. The open carrying of unloaded handguns does not satisfy
    the second amendment interest in self-defense.

    there is no need to fully recount the argument that constitutionality of concealed carry
    restrictions depends upon whether the right to carry a gun is otherwise respected. The case upon
    which defendants most heavily rely, peruta v. County of san diego, 2010 u.s. Dist. Lexis
    130878 (s.d. Cal. Dec. 10, 2010), held so directly:

    [i]n its order denying defendant’s motion to dismiss, this court emphasized that not all
    concealed weapons bans are presumptively lawful. Heller and the 19th-century cases it
    relied upon instruct that concealed weapons restrictions cannot be viewed in isolation;
    they must be viewed in the context of the government’s overall scheme.
    Peruta, at *18 (emphasis in original).

    Defendants nonetheless aver that plaintiffs have no second amendment need for a permit
    to carry a handgun because “[n]othing . . . Precludes a person openly carrying an unloaded
    weapon with ammunition close at hand from lawfully loading it when faced with an emergency
    situation to act in self-defense or the defense of others.” def. Br. At 12-13.

    respectfully, the peruta court seriously erred in accepting this rationale. The open
    carrying of an unloaded handgun is itself a dangerous practice. It is an open invitation to
    criminals to rob an individual of his or her unloaded and thus indefensible handgun. Nor does it
    seriously afford an individual time to react to a sudden criminal attack. The right to bear arms is,
    after all, the right to be “armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict
    with another person.” heller, 128 s. Ct. At 2793 (citation omitted) (emphasis added). An
    individual carrying an unloaded gun is neither armed, nor ready for defensive action.
    Peruta misread california law, which distinguishes the fundamental character of loaded
    and unloaded guns. A person is only considered “armed” if carrying a functional handgun. See,
    e.g. Cal. Penal code § 12023(a) (“[e]very person who carries a loaded firearm with the intent to
    commit a felony is guilty of armed criminal action”) (emphasis added). And in heller, the
    supreme court struck down a requirement that firearms in the home be rendered inoperable, as
    that “makes it impossible for citizens to use [firearms] for the core lawful purpose of
    self-defense.” heller, 128 s. Ct. At 2818.
    while in theory, the california law allows for some exceptions if the person is practically under attack, defendants do not cite the law’s definition of these circumstances—“the brief
    interval before and after the local law enforcement agency, when reasonably possible, has been
    notified of the danger and before the arrival of its assistance.” cal. Penal code § 12031(j)(1).

    This hardly qualifies as permission to be “armed and ready” for defensive action.
    Criminal attacks are frequently sudden, and by their nature impose a great deal of stress and
    difficulty on their victims. Violent criminals are not so chivalrous as to afford their prey time to
    load their firearms. Defendants’ employees do not carry unloaded firearms for a reason. As
    heller instructs, “[a] statute which, under the pretence of regulating, amounts to a destruction of
    the right, or which requires arms to be so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose
    of defence, would be clearly unconstitutional.” heller, 128 s. Ct. At 2818 (quoting state v. Reid,
    1 ala. 612, 616-17 (1840)).

    But plaintiffs do not claim that simply because penal code § 12031 requires that openlycarried
    firearms be unloaded, that it must be unconstitutional. Regardless of whatever the peruta
    plaintiffs asserted, precedent clearly allows the state to ban the open carrying of firearms entirely
    if it so chooses, so long as it does not then ban concealed carrying as well. Section 12031 would
    only be unconstitutional if state law forbade the concealed carrying of arms, and this the law does
    not do. Rather, the law, permissibly, bans open carrying of functional firearms for all practical
    intents and purposes, and subjects the concealed carrying of firearms to a licensing scheme. The
    only alleged defect in that licensing scheme is that it affords defendants unbridled discretion.
    In the absence of a licensing scheme for the concealed carry of handguns, plaintiffs would
    have to challenge the constitutionality of penal code § 12031, because the law would then
    simply ban, without more, the practical carrying of handguns. And if california law allowed the
    open carrying of loaded firearms, plaintiffs would have greater difficulty challenging the
    concealed carrying system. But that is not the state of the law.
    q f r
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...


    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

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Richmond, VA
    Pretty thorough response. Was actually a very good read.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Personal responsibility is a facade created by religious people in particular...
    On "Personal Responsibility just after the previous, in the same exact thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Religion uses is as a tool, they did not create it.
    The wheels on the bus go round and round...round and round.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    You think that I am ill-equipped...hit me with your best shot Einstein, I am calling you out.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Free will is only slightly a conscious exercise...

  5. #5
    Regular Member demnogis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Orange County, California, USA
    That was a damn good read.
    Gun control isn't about guns -- it is about control.

Posting Permissions

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