Saturday, January 14, 2017

Peruta Team Asking Supreme Court to Hear Appeal to the Case on Bearing Arms Ouside the Home

Edward Peruta and his fellow plaintiffs have decided to have their council petition the Supreme Court to hear an appeal to the last Ninth Circuit decision in The Peruta case.

Edward Peruta applied to the San Diego County Sheriff for a permit to carry concealed. The Sheriff refused to grant him a permit. Peruta's case was wrapped in with another case making its way through the courts, with other plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were ruled against in the district court and appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

The Ninth Circuit ruled that County Sheriffs could not use their discretion to arbitrarily deny concealed carry permits, because California had outlawed most open carry; therefore the Sheriff could not arbitrarily deny carry outside the home to the general population.

After a change in the leadership of the Ninth Circuit, the Ninth decided to set aside the decision of the three judge panel, and hear the appeal en banc. In the en banc decision, the Ninth ignored the ban on open carry and concluded that it was constitutional for sheriffs to use discretion to deny concealed carry permits.  The orders and opinions at the Ninth Circuit are available here.

The legal team of C.D. Michel and Associates has filed a Petition For Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. The question filed is whether, when open carry is prohibited, can county sheriffs ban most people from obtaining a concealed carry permit, when they have the option to grant those permits? Here is the question as given in the petition:

Under California law, openly carrying a handgun outside the home is generally prohibited, but concealed carry is permissible with a license. While an applicant must demonstrate “good cause” to obtain a concealed-carry license, county sheriffs can—and many do—interpret “good cause” to include a desire to carry a handgun for self-defense. The San Diego County Sheriff takes a different, and much more restrictive, approach, defining “good cause” to require a particularized need for self-defense that differentiates the applicant from the ordinary citizen. The majority of a three-judge panel held the Sheriff’s policy unconstitutional, concluding that ordinary, law-abiding citizens may not be deprived of the ability to obtain concealed-carry licenses for self-defense when state law already prohibits open carry. But the majority of an en banc panel reached the opposite conclusion, holding that the Sheriff may deny concealed-carry licenses on any terms he chooses because there is no independent constitutional right to concealed carry. In reaching that conclusion, the Ninth Circuit added to the sharp division among the lower courts over whether the Second Amendment allows ordinary, law-abiding citizens to be deprived of all means of carrying a handgun for self-defense.

The question presented is: 
Whether the Second Amendment entitles ordinary, law-abiding citizens to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense in some manner, including concealed carry when open carry is forbidden by state law.

 The Supreme Court hears only a small percentage of cases that petition to have their case heard. This case may be "ripe" with a split in the Circuits; that is simply speculation. Whether a replacement for Justice Scalia will be appointed to the court in time to hear the case is also uncertain.

©2017 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.

Link to Gun Watch



Anonymous said...

MANNER is the dangerous word in taking this one to SCOTUS. I see the line, in trying to force the court's hand into admitting that carrying concealed MUST be a right IF open carry is prohibited, playing into the current "precedent" that it is OK to prohibit concealed carry when open carry is legal. However, I believe this is not the one to make the case. I see it as a set up case, but not a winning case.

It does have merit in forcing a HUGE internal split, seeing as how some places are open carry but concealed is permit only, some places are concealed carry by permit only and then there is may issue games still being played amounting to almost no issue. ANY decision they come down on in terms of MANNER (other than states can choose whatever) puts the court on notice of a litany of cases no matter what they decide. And they CAN'T decide states can do whatever, because A)that is the corner they are in to begin with and B) the plain language of the 14th says states cant make or enforce these laws in the first place.

I predict the court will PUNT. Cert Denied. SCOTUS will let the 9th wallow in its own filth while seeking a better case to rule on manner - and give states more time to bring about what it SHOULD be in the first place - Constitutional Carry. Remember, Caetano was as big as Heller and McDonald. It was TERSE, and the 9th chose not to listen. Maybe SCOTUS grants cert and issues orders to the 9th without even hearing any of it, again forcing the 9th to wallow in its own filth.

Anonymous said...

In my opinion the supreme court should have had original jurisdiction. Read the second amendment. it states the right to keep and bear arms. there is nothing in those 26 words of the second amendment that states a reason to deny anyone from carrying under any circumstances. It is written as blanket coverage for any self defense weapon. A county sheriff or a corporation have no authority to deny anyone's constitutional rights. The supreme court has ruled " if it is not written it does not exist and" there is nothing written that can be enforced to deny any individual a right to keep and bear arms. People that willfully deny civil or constitutional rights are subject to law suits for damages. the right to carry or bear is a guarantee to every individual. the tenth amendment denies the ability to infringe as does the second amendment. the second amendment is a federal issue and therefore the states have no authority to interfere. when the tenth amendment says "or to the people" it mean if the federal constitution does not address the issue and the states have no authority to address the issue then the right to keep and bear is an individual rights under the un enumerated rights not listed in the constitution. The federal constitution does not require self defense weapons or any other weapons to be secured in a safe out of the reach for self defense. there is no definition of what is a weapon. but the right to keep and bear is written and anything other than that is an unconstitutional infringement. the second amendment would be pages long to list everything being used to infringe. since none of those words are written and the second amendment only has 26 words nothing else can be added by federal or state laws and acts. constitutional amendments are the only ways to change what is written to include any of those missing words. for example try sitting down and defining what any of those extra words require to explain them. What is open or concealed , what is a legal safe. what limitations are meant for license or permit. then explain why a barrel length makes any difference. If you can be denied at age 16 why cant you be denied at 36 ,66, 96 or 206. there is no age limit in the second amendment. there is no definition of an assault weapon written in the federal constitution so how can semi or full auto be described. are we supposed to be prevented from looking at various weapons, it looks dangerous? all weapons are dangerous that is why they are called weapons. any thing used as a weapon is intended to inflict harm on an attacker. No one can stand there and tell you what you must use to defend yourself. rocks, clubs, knives, 2 inch barrels or 36 in barrels make no difference when used to defend your self box cutter or bowie knife or sword Lots of people have been killed with a hand made bow and arrow. blow guns or bolos. assault weapons are those used in war like armored tanks, rocket launchers, claymore mines. it is easy to learn the difference when under fire in a war zone. self defense is anything you can carry with one or two hands. that is keep and bear. I'll keep and bear anything I damn well please without asking any one else permission it is not their life I am defending. but it could be their life and they will be damn glad I was carrying. Like the Arizona highway patrolman who was just saved by a passer by.

Anonymous said...

These issues never get the right questions asked or answered. short sighted people should never be attorneys. Lack of knowledge is another problem. first of all any law abiding citizen has all of their constitutional rights where ever they go in this country. As mentioned in the Florida state preemption law. The federal constitution is a preemption law when it comes to states rights. It makes no difference where you are, crossing a state line does not prohibit you from exercising your federally guaranteed constitutional rights. Rights can not be taxed. there Is no need for a fee to cover expenses when there is no basis for the state actions. You can not tax a right, you can not license a right and any regulation of a right is an infringement on that right. If any person has the right to be on the street any where in this country they have the right of self defense.

An elected or appointed law enforcement officer is employed to enforce law not create laws or regulations. If a law enforcement officer denies a person the means of self defense, According to the Florida preemption law, and you wind up being assaulted or killed then that law enforcement officer should be charged with the appropriate crimes, assault or murder. If in fact the federal constitution, under the tenth amendment separation of powers is considered a preemption law then any state denying the right of the individual to carry for self defense has violated the effect of that preemption.

If you are not in confinement, jail or prison, then you have the right to be on the street. being on the street automatically gives you the right of self defense where ever you are. a state line can not remove that right because the federal constitution says you have the right to keep and bear arms. Nothing in the federal constitution limits why, where, how or when. Criminals can shoot you anywhere, this is why gun free zones are unconstitutional. they are criminals because they ignore the laws that prohibit them from shooting you in a gun free zone. No one knows where or when self defense may be required. to be stripped or denied of that right anywhere is unconstitutional. Red Dawn scenario, what if you are ten miles from home and your locked up gun, How can we the militia respond effectively?