Peruta v. County of San Diego- Oral Arguments Nov. 15th

[BorregoWrangler]

I'll be attending the oral arguments in Peruta, November 15th, 10:30am in San Diego, courtroom #1.

Peruta v. County of San Diego is a Second Amendment case challenging the concealed carry license issuing policies in San Diego County. This case was started when Ed Peruta applied for his conceal carry license and was subsequently denied. He wished to carry for defense of self and family.

Ed then started the internal appeals process with the license division for the sheriff’s office. He painstakingly exhausted all administrative options for appealing the denial of his concealed carry license. After which Ed hired an attorney and filed a civil rights case in federal court. Both the County of San Diego, and Sheriff Gore himself are defendants in this case. The lawsuit was later amended and added several other plaintiffs including the CRPA Foundation which helped strengthen the case for the general public.

This case has the potential to fix carry for San Diego County and like the Sykes v. McGinness case may even fix carry for all of California depending on what happens at trial. When we say "fix carry" we mean to say that when you apply for your CCW permit, the right of "self defense" is sufficient for "good cause" as it relates to California penal code 12050

The case will be argued in court around June 2011.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ Joint Motion to Amend the Briefing Schedule is GRANTED. The parties shall file their motions in accordance with the dates stipulated to and set forth in the parties’ joint motion, and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment shall be heard in this Court on November 15, 2010 at 10:30 am.

I spoke to a clerk at the U.S. federal courthouse in downtown San Diego. The clerk said that at the present time there is nothing to state that the public could not attend the hearings in the Peruta case. Therefore, I am going to attend.

If you're in the greater San Diego area, and want to attend, please fell free do so. I think it would be great to show support for Ed and Plaintiffs counsel. Please dress well to show respect for the court, and remember no weapons are allowed in the courthouse.

Edward J. Schwartz U.S. Courthouse



Address:
U.S. District Court
Southern District of California
940 Front Street
San Diego, CA 92101-8900

Phone:
619/557-5600

Hours:
Building is open M-F 7:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m.

Parking:
There are a limited number of metered spaces on the courthouse block. There are several public parking lots in the vicinity.

Public Transportation:
The courthouse is accessible by both trolley and bus.

http://www.examiner.com/la-in-los-angel ... cw-hearing

[ssc]

I am not familiar with this matter. However, from what you have posted, it sounds like the oral arguments will be next June. It sounds like 11-15 is just law and motion matters. Motions for summary judgment are very rarely granted. The parties have already filed their respective motions and oppositions and replies. The court may have already issued a tenative ruling. I am unfamiliar with how the feds deal with law and motion. Let us know how it goes.

Regards, Steve

[BorregoWrangler]

It was all very interesting. I've never been in a courtroom for something like this. Both sides were givin all the time they wanted to express their positions. County Counsel kept talking about the Supreme Court Heller decision limiting the 2nd amendment to "inside the home" and also ignored the McDonald decision, going to the defense of "What about the children?" He also said that UOC (unloaded open carry) is fine, omitting the part about the GFSZ restriction making that prospect totally impractical for daily use. Perutas' team gave a much stronger factual based argument, qutoing case law correctly. Judge Gonzalez seem to be impartial and will issue a ruling in 3 or 4 weeks on the Motion for Partial Summary Judgement.

[BorregoWrangler]

This is Judge Gonzalez's ruling on San Diego's motion to dismiss- http://ia341314.us.archive.org/2/items/ ... 78.7.0.pdf

Looks like she's refuted most of the arguments the County continues to make.