Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Peruta Appeal Brief Filed - Hints at possible avenue for a challenge of 626.9

  1. #1
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231

    Peruta Appeal Brief Filed - Hints at possible avenue for a challenge of 626.9

    http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/car...f-20110523.pdf

    I quote;

    The statutory allowance for UOC is severely restricted geographically, to the
    point of being practically useless for effective self-defense. Cal. Pen § 626.9, 18
    U.S.C. §§ 921(a)(25); 922(q) & 924(a). Those who UOC must learn the location of
    every school in their route, determine what areas are within 1,000 feet thereof, and
    either plan to travel around them (which in urban areas is virtually impossible), or
    stop and place the firearm in a locked container each time they enter such a zone,26
    or risk felony prosecution.27


    27 Nor did the court address the unintended legal consequences of declaring
    UOC the constitutionally protected method of carry. For instance, such a ruling
    may place in jeopardy the lawfulness of Cal. Pen § 626.9 (Gun Free School Zone
    Act, banning open carry within 1000 feet of a school facility), a far more drastic
    result than granting Plaintiffs the relief they seek.
    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

  2. #2
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    Definitely trying to throw the consequences of "substantial burden" back in the face of the courts, and rightfully so. It's nice to see the entirety of unjust California law being pulled into these briefs to remind the court of how restricted Californians are from bearing arms.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Susanville, California, USA
    Posts
    529
    Quote Originally Posted by ConditionThree View Post
    Thanks C-3 for putting this post on.
    And Hoffmang too.
    Good to see we are getting ahead some. Robin47

  4. #4
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Peruta said he was willing to fight this all the way. Looks like he wasn't lying. Go get 'em Ed glad we have individuals like yourself with the determination and resources to fight for your rights.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  5. #5
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660
    Nicely put together, attacking all angles of tyranny definitely demonstrates the undue burden being placed upon law abiding citizens to exercise their 2A rights. Go get 'em boys!
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  6. #6
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Peruta said he was willing to fight this all the way. Looks like he wasn't lying. Go get 'em Ed glad we have individuals like yourself with the determination and resources to fight for your rights.
    Keep in mind that this is an NRA/CRPA litigated case based on the Alan Gura/SAF/CGF litigation frame work.

    And yes many thanks to Ed!
    Last edited by cato; 05-26-2011 at 12:52 PM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Susanville, California, USA
    Posts
    529
    Quote Originally Posted by cato View Post
    Keep in mind that this is an NRA/CRPA litigated case based on the Alan Gura/SAF/CGF litigation frame work.

    And yes many thanks to Ed!
    Big Yes ! Thanks ED, your doing a great service to all of us in Cali. Robin47

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Long Beach
    Posts
    13

    Amicus Briefs filed in Peruta

    Just wanted to let everyone know that two amicus briefs have been filed in support of plaintiffs in this case. One, authored by renowned Second Amendment scholar and attorney, Stephen Halbrook, on behalf of the Congress Of Racial Equality. And, the other, authored by renowned constitutional litigator, Paul Clement, on behalf of the National Rifle Association.

    Both of these briefs can be viewed at www.calgunlaws.com

    Keep an eye out in the coming days for more amicus briefs being filed in this case, both for the plaintiffs and the County.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cherry Tree (Indiana County), Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,155
    Well, between the appeal and one of the two Amicus briefs, the following items are in the line of fire:
    1. Discriminatory (may issue) licensing.
    2. So-called "gun free" school zones.
    3. Unloaded open carry.

    I seriously tried reading the Brady Bunch brief, but lost my lunch while doing so. Are these people serious?

  10. #10
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691
    Quote Originally Posted by Statkowski View Post
    Well, between the appeal and one of the two Amicus briefs, the following items are in the line of fire:
    1. Discriminatory (may issue) licensing.
    2. So-called "gun free" school zones.
    3. Unloaded open carry.

    I seriously tried reading the Brady Bunch brief, but lost my lunch while doing so. Are these people serious?
    The Brady Bunch believe that if you yell fire in a theater when there is no fire you should go to prison but not suspend the 1st amendment.
    However, if you carry a gun into a theater, you should go to prison and the 2nd amendment should be suspended.
    Last edited by Gundude; 05-27-2011 at 09:52 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.

  11. #11
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by cato View Post
    Keep in mind that this is an NRA/CRPA litigated case based on the Alan Gura/SAF/CGF litigation frame work.

    And yes many thanks to Ed!
    Will do thanks. I look forward to seeing how this plays out and hopefully it plays out well.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  12. #12
    Regular Member Rich Keagy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    126
    Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought the purpose of GFSZs was to keep hoodlums away from public school grounds.
    Has it ever been used for that purpose?
    Rich Keagy
    www.esmeralda.cc

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran EXTREMEOPS1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Escondido CA
    Posts
    248

    Hoodlums in GFSZs.........

    Quote Originally Posted by Rich Keagy View Post
    Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought the purpose of GFSZs was to keep hoodlums away from public school grounds.
    Has it ever been used for that purpose?
    Errrrr no I guess they didn't get the memo......only us legal gun owners got that memo
    "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.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691
    Quote Originally Posted by SBrady@Michel&Associates View Post
    Just wanted to let everyone know that two amicus briefs have been filed in support of plaintiffs in this case. One, authored by renowned Second Amendment scholar and attorney, Stephen Halbrook, on behalf of the Congress Of Racial Equality. And, the other, authored by renowned constitutional litigator, Paul Clement, on behalf of the National Rifle Association.

    Both of these briefs can be viewed at www.calgunlaws.com

    Keep an eye out in the coming days for more amicus briefs being filed in this case, both for the plaintiffs and the County.
    Bump!
    More briefs filed.
    Wondering why none from the Brady bunch???
    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.

  15. #15
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
    Bump!
    More briefs filed.
    Wondering why none from the Brady bunch???
    Because if the Brady Campaign were to file a brief supporting the defendant, it would almost be endorsing the assertion that UOC was a suitable expression of the right to keep and bear arms. ;-)

    No- the real reason is that they probably dont have sufficient support to have competent attornies compose breifs on every gun related case.
    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

  16. #16
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691
    I'm glad they remain silent. I don't have to lose my lunch.
    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.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691
    Alan Gura's brief is attacking the license for carrying. Is he going for constitutional carry? That increases my pucker factor by at least 10.
    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.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Long Beach
    Posts
    13

    More Amicus Briefs

    Quote Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
    Bump!
    More briefs filed.
    Wondering why none from the Brady bunch???
    Yes, multiple new briefs were filed on Tuesday, the due date for amicus briefs in support of Plaintiffs. They are all available on www.calgunlaws.com

    Briefs in support of San Diego/Gore are not due until later (hence the reason there is no brief from the Bradys yet; it will likely be coming though).

Posting Permissions

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