Second Amendment lawsuit takes aim at SD Sheriff Gore(CA)

[Yoda]

Looks like there's some movement in the right direction in California:

There are many reasons applicants are denied the right to carry a hand gun, prior brushes with the law, inconsistent legal records or lack of need, however in San Diego it appears if they just don’t like you your conceal carry permit application it is stamped – DENIED.

...Edward Peruta has filed a lawsuit against San Diego County and Sheriff William Gore – leveling some precedent-setting charges.

Peruta, a Connecticut native, owns home in several states (including California), calls himself a liberal Democrat and is a firm believer in the Second Amendment and finds it odd that he is having so many troubles in San Diego.

...

“I knew there was going to be trouble when I turned in my application at the San Diego Sheriff’s office and they denied me before they even took my application! I was stunned by their lack of candor,” Peruta explains.

...During the initial phase of the CCW application process Burns advised him he did not meet the criteria for a CCW license and was denied the ability to turn in an application.

...“Despite the fact Peruta was told he did not meet the criteria for a CCW license Peruta insisted this office accept his application. Peruta was advised that no monies would be refunded once his application was accepted.”

Houston we have a problem, collecting 100 percent of the fees and not refunding money is against California Penal Code.

... The department balks at Peruta’s residence even though he has presented paperwork for the last two years, fulfilling the residency requirement the Sheriff Department claims is mandatory for a successful application.

The lawsuit Peruta filed will tackle the residency issue San Diego is claiming as the leading indicator for denial of his CCW permit. The thorough process the SD Sheriff’s office says they completed did not include contacting the plaintiff’s eight character references, including three law enforcement officers, disregarding the three states that have issued CCW permits to Peruta already and looking at the “good cause” aspects in connected to the CCW submitted application.

...

“I believe that if this case is not settled and finds its way for whatever reason to a higher court, it has the potential to impact the right to bear arms across the country for countless law abiding individuals. I’d like to believe that this case will clarify and correct the current pattern of abuse which exists in the State of California regarding CCW licenses,” Peruta says.

Here's the link:
http://www.examiner.com/x-10317-San...mendment-lawsuit-takes-aim-at-SD-Sheriff-Gore

- - - Yoda

 

[Gouranga]

Could be a good thing. I know here in NC like many states, they do it county to county. There is so much latitude given to the sheriff (instead of the LAW), that there is way too much opportunity for abuse to one side or another. You can have an underfunded, overtaxed sheriff who may rubber stamp every permit because he simply is too busy to do otherwise, or one who politically hates CCW so he does everything he can to slow down and block permits.

This case points out the latter, you have a sheriff who is completely hindering issuance oif a legal permit application.

 

[Leanwolf]

"Peruta, a Connecticut native, owns home in several states (including California), calls himself a liberal Democrat and is a firm believer in the Second Amendment and finds it odd that he is having so many troubles in San Diego."

The reason Mr. Peruta is "having so many troubles" in San Diego, is quite simply because liberal Democrats (such as Mr. Peruta?) control California and San Diego, including the San Diego Sheriff. (And most all Sheriffs and Chiefs of Police in the heavily populated areas.)

It always comes as a shock to those "Neolib Progressives" who always think of themselves as "members of the King's Court," therefore immune from the King's dictates, that they are not, in fact, immune. Then it's always ...

"This isn't fair! I thought those restrictions of 'inalienable Rights' were just for the worker peasant rabble and not for me, an elite liberal! Woe is me." Happens every time.

If Mr. Peruta decides to fight his case with a lawsuit, I hope he has a boxcar full of money because that's what it'll take to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The various Appeals courts in Calif., including the Calif. Supreme Court will rule against him. So will the Ninth Federal District Court.

Good luck, Mr. Peruta. Now you might understand why we (Neanderthol) Conservatives believe in the Constitution.



L.W.

 

[wishin]

You are right, but rather than gloat, I'm more inclined to applaud Peruta for his persistence and taking it to court. We can use liberal Democrats to further our cause, no matter their politics.

 

[rmfnla]

I thought taking "The High Road" meant refraining from name-calling, especially for someone who apparently agrees with the 2nd ammendment...

 

[danez71]

You are right, but rather than gloat, I'm more inclined to applaud Peruta for his persistence and taking it to court. We can use liberal Democrats to further our cause, no matter their politics.

Me too.

 

[wgaynor]

It's not a High Road issue, but a political rule. The liberal Democrats can call names. The conservative/republican side cannot.

I do applaud the gentleman for exercising his rights.

 

[Mags]

It's not a High Road issue, but a political rule. The liberal Democrats can call names. The conservative/republican side cannot.

Politics and The High Road don't mix, please leave politics outta the posts here especially in a good thread like this. I always hate to see good threads ending up locked because they turn into political debates.

 

[BHP FAN]

Me too.I'd applaud anyone who supports the second amendment and the RKBA, no matter what his politics are.

 

[Neverwinter]

If Mr. Peruta decides to fight his case with a lawsuit, I hope he has a boxcar full of money because that's what it'll take to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The various Appeals courts in Calif., including the Calif. Supreme Court will rule against him. So will the Ninth Federal District Court.

Good luck, Mr. Peruta. Now you might understand why we (Neanderthol) Conservatives believe in the Constitution.

Case in point, the Neanderthal Ninth Circuit Court ruled against the Commerce Clause in Raich v Ashcroft.

 

[TexasBill]

Funny thing is, the guy who signed the unloaded open carry legislation into law was that well-known liberal Democrat, Ronald Reagan, who also supported the Brady Bill (In fairness, it should be noted that Reagan, like Charlton Heston, was originally a Democrat who changed party affiliation when Joe McCarthy started hunting for Commies in Hollywood).

The folks who shut down Nancy Pelosi and the renewal of the assault weapons ban were Democrats.

The liberal Democrats can call names. The conservative/republican side cannot.

Oh, really? Don't know where you've been, but out here in the real world, there's been some pretty nasty language on both sides of the fence.

Another point to ponder: How come it's a liberal Democrat who's fighting this sheriff? Otis McDonald, the lead plaintiff in McDonald vs. Chicago, is a black Democrat, a civil rights champion who integrated his union and worked at the University of Chicago and wanted a handgun for protection because he had been a victim of crime and lived in a bad area of Chicago. The group that funded Heller vs. Washington D.C. is Libertarian, as is the lead attorney in both Heller and McDonald.

So where have all the "out of my cold dead hands" conservative Republicans been? In Washington, they had the years from 2001 to 2007 to make meaningful, pro-gun changes in federal law. They let the assault weapons ban expire, which was nice, but they could have done so much more. Incidentally, George W. Bush, on more than one occasion, said he would sign a renewal of the AWB if it hit his desk and Dick Cheney actually broke with the Bush Administration to support Heller in the Supreme Court case.

In Texas, which Republicans rule, the Legislature passed a law that relaxed the laws governing concealed firearms in vehicles. Several Republican district attorneys, including Chuck Rosenthal, Harris County D.A. and one of the most powerful district attorneys in the state, ignored the new law and told police agencies in his jurisdiction to continue enforcing the old, more restrictive law. In the next session of the Legislature, they had to amend the bill to make it absolutely clear what was intended. Of course, by then, Rosenthal had left office because of misconduct.

There are times when the old phrase "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is true. If Mr. Peruta wins, it benefits everyone, not just liberal Democrats and, hopefully, not just in San Diego. So give the epithets a rest and wish Mr. Peruta the best.

 

[Kindrox]

It is always hard to speak in absolutes, but in my experiance this is true enough to let it stand, even if it is politically incorrect to say. I don't see truth as a political statement.

The reason Mr. Peruta is "having so many troubles" in San Diego, is quite simply because liberal Democrats (such as Mr. Peruta?) control California and San Diego, including the San Diego Sheriff. (And most all Sheriffs and Chiefs of Police in the heavily populated areas.)

It always comes as a shock to those "Neolib Progressives" who always think of themselves as "members of the King's Court," therefore immune from the King's dictates, that they are not, in fact, immune. Then it's always ...

"This isn't fair! I thought those restrictions of 'inalienable Rights' were just for the worker peasant rabble and not for me, an elite liberal! Woe is me." Happens every time.

 

[MarineOne]

Politics aside, I think this is good news for ALL of us. He's using the system to embarrass itself, albeit for his own personal benefit, so let him have his day. IMHO, I think this will be settled out of court and San Diego County might be looking for a new sheriff after this one "retires".

Now if someone like Mr. Peruta calls himself a "liberal Democrat", this is a label that he's chosen for himself and isn't anywhere near name calling.

 

[jimmyraythomason]

lack of need

I don't understand that at all.

 

[wishin]

I don't understand that at all.

How true. The hell of it is you don't need it 'til you need it!

 

[danez71]

Funny thing is, the guy who signed the unloaded open carry legislation into law was that well-known liberal Democrat, Ronald Reagan, who also supported the Brady Bill (In fairness, it should be noted that Reagan, like Charlton Heston, was originally a Democrat who changed party affiliation when Joe McCarthy started hunting for Commies in Hollywood).

The folks who shut down Nancy Pelosi and the renewal of the assault weapons ban were Democrats.



Oh, really? Don't know where you've been, but out here in the real world, there's been some pretty nasty language on both sides of the fence.

Another point to ponder: How come it's a liberal Democrat who's fighting this sheriff? Otis McDonald, the lead plaintiff in McDonald vs. Chicago, is a black Democrat, a civil rights champion who integrated his union and worked at the University of Chicago and wanted a handgun for protection because he had been a victim of crime and lived in a bad area of Chicago. The group that funded Heller vs. Washington D.C. is Libertarian, as is the lead attorney in both Heller and McDonald.

So where have all the "out of my cold dead hands" conservative Republicans been? In Washington, they had the years from 2001 to 2007 to make meaningful, pro-gun changes in federal law. They let the assault weapons ban expire, which was nice, but they could have done so much more. Incidentally, George W. Bush, on more than one occasion, said he would sign a renewal of the AWB if it hit his desk and Dick Cheney actually broke with the Bush Administration to support Heller in the Supreme Court case.

In Texas, which Republicans rule, the Legislature passed a law that relaxed the laws governing concealed firearms in vehicles. Several Republican district attorneys, including Chuck Rosenthal, Harris County D.A. and one of the most powerful district attorneys in the state, ignored the new law and told police agencies in his jurisdiction to continue enforcing the old, more restrictive law. In the next session of the Legislature, they had to amend the bill to make it absolutely clear what was intended. Of course, by then, Rosenthal had left office because of misconduct.

There are times when the old phrase "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is true. If Mr. Peruta wins, it benefits everyone, not just liberal Democrats and, hopefully, not just in San Diego. So give the epithets a rest and wish Mr. Peruta the best.

Very good post.

I'll add that being "liberal", whether Democrat or republican, means giving people liberties/freedom. Being "liberal" means you want freedom.

Both republicans and Democrats are my friends until either one of them try to take my rights away. I vote for good, not evil, regardless of party affiliation.

This is not a Democrat vs republican issue. This is a RKBA issue. Both parties can and should support our rights.

 

[Officers'Wife]

You can have an underfunded, overtaxed sheriff who may rubber stamp every permit because he simply is too busy to do otherwise, or one who politically hates CCW so he does everything he can to slow down and block permits.

All the more reason to research sheriff candidates before the election and vote for the one most likely to obey the law rather than the one likely to win the election.

 

[Zoogster]

Case in point, the Neanderthal Ninth Circuit Court ruled against the Commerce Clause in Raich v Ashcroft.

And in the United States v Stewart case (concerning machineguns in Arizona.) The 9th Circuit Court headquartered in California met and decided homemade machineguns and other NFA items meant only for personal use were immune to the NFA being outside the scope of the commerce clause! (The 9th Circuit being responsible for pro gun locations like Idaho, Arizona, Nevade, Oregon etc as well.)
That is until the United States Supreme Court received the case, and then sent it back to the 9th circuit essentially telling them to reverse their decision in light of the new Raich decision. Which they promptly did.

So if up to the 9th Circuit you would have been free to make and modify NFA items for personal use free from federal jurisdiction.
You never know what the 9th Circuit is going to do because who is on the bench and hears a particular case changes each time. Only a fraction of the judges of the 9th circuit hear a particular case. So the makeup and political ideology is different every time it meets.
(Though most of the antis which are more prevalent do tend to follow your stereotypical San Francisco type political ideology.)

 

[Big Bill]

There are sure lots of sick creeps in the land of fruits and nuts. I hope the plaintiff wins.

 

[oldgold]

Texas Bill has it right.,,,,,,,almost.

It's not the Dems or republicans or even the libs we have to watch out for. It's the Progressives that have infiltrated all three parties. The progressives follow their addenda one little step at a time but never loose sight of their objective.

One little law, like "one gun a month" or the "assault weapons ban" or even the Homeland Security regulation , all work against us. Each little chip in the infrastructure or the Constitution works in their favor. These little chips get embedded in each new law that gets passed. A few more and their won't be a need for an outright ban on guns.

You just won't get any ammo or have a place to shoot if you do or a way to get there legally. It's happening a small piece at a time. I know not how to stop it.

 

[TexasBill]

Oldgold brings up a good point. Labels are interesting things. A lot of people, especially younger ones, fail to remember is that all those Southern Republicans used to be Southern Democrats. Southern Democrats were extremely conservative. As the national party moved to the left, the Southern Democrats didn't change their positions; they changed their party affiliation. And look at some of the old Republicans, like Dwight Eisenhower, who today might be classed as Democrats. Abraham Lincoln was one of the greatest Republicans who ever lived.

You think Strom Thurmond was a liberal? Neither do I, but he was a Democrat until he was 62, nearly two-thirds of his life. He was a Democrat when he served in Would War II and a Democrat when he was Governor of South Carolina.

To this day, there are conservative Democrats and there used to be liberal Republicans (though I think those have been hunted to the brink of extinction). And the majority of the electorate is in the middle, just where it should be.

What has happened is that gun rights vs. gun control have been assigned to the fringes of both ends of the political spectrum, where it never should have been. The right of the people to keep and bear arms superseded the Constitution. The Second Amendment simply forbids the government from interfering with it. Strictly constructed, even the states don't have the right to abridge RKBA because, while we also may be citizens of Alabama or Wyoming, we are, first and foremost, citizens of the United States and those natural rights are guaranteed to us. Wyatt Earp had no more right to ban open carrying of handguns in Dodge City than Eric Holder does pushing an assault weapons ban.

The thing that really bugs me is the "poor little me" attitude. We want the system to change but we don't want to be bothered by being part of the system. We'd rather be Monday-morning quarterbacks than be on the field.

How about being a Senator or Representative, either at the federal or state level? Run for a seat of the school board where you can influence the policies on firearms and rein in teachers and administrators who overreact to innocent play. Sheriffs are almost always elected and so are county attorneys and constables (and mayors and city council people who appoint police chiefs). Many places don't even require law enforcement certification until after you're elected. Get involved with your party at the local level and become part of the process that develops the party platform. The state and national parties are all drawn from the local parties and often all that's needed to be part of the local caucus is to be (a) a member of the party, and (b) breathing.

Or sit there, stroke your gun barrels while mouthing mighty epithets, and hope someone else will do the dirty work for you.

And, yes, even though I used to be sort of active in politics, I am just as guilty of mouthing might epithets and the rest. I think it's time I started showing up at party meetings even if it's just to shake things up.

 

[andyh1956]

carry permit

leanwolf said it best- "they think they are members of the kings court". thats what they all think- that after the one world gov takes over they will ALL be up there ruling over us. well folks there are only so many places at the dog dish & wouldn't i like to be there & see the look on their faces when they find the door at the penthouse slammed in their faces! most libs are too stupid to see they are being used as a means to an end - if i'm still here i will be standing on the ground floor waiting for them when the elevator doors open when they come back down. sorry for the rant, but it won't be the last.
andy

 

[Tim the student]

leanwolf said it best- "they think they are members of the kings court". thats what they all think- that after the one world gov takes over they will ALL be up there ruling over us. well folks there are only so many places at the dog dish & wouldn't i like to be there & see the look on their faces when they find the door at the penthouse slammed in their faces! most libs are too stupid to see they are being used as a means to an end - if i'm still here i will be standing on the ground floor waiting for them when the elevator doors open when they come back down. sorry for the rant, but it won't be the last.
andy

Andy, I hate to break it to you, but there are a lot of libs here.

Maybe you should read this thread. It may be of more use than spouting off about how stupid most are.

Anyways, this guy has done more today for the 2A than I have today, and I would guess more than most people here. More power to him.

This guy is trying to help "the cause". Good on that guy, and anyone else who helps it. On the flip side, piss on anyone who does not help, Democrat or Republican.

 

[trapperjohn]

I'll add that being "liberal", whether Democrat or republican, means giving people liberties/freedom. Being "liberal" means you want freedom.

boy i wish that were true!
tell that to the liberal supremes that voted against Heller. you are confusing liberal with libertarian, there is a BIG difference

 

[shooter94]

I'm really, really not surprised at all. I left my home State of CA after 43 years of oppression for being a firearms enthusiest. Whenever asked what my hobbies were in casual conversation with someone I just met, I'd tell them I collected stamps for fear of some type of retaliation.