• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

PERUTA V. SAN DIEGO CERT PETITION - JANUARY 12, 2017

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – January 12, 2017 at 2:02 PM – San Diego Sheriff Gore’s attorney quickly responded to my request for the cert petition filed in this case. The same cannot be said of the attorneys for Orange County Sheriff Hutchens who never responded to my inquiry. You can read the cert petition by clicking on the link. It is under today’s update as well as above the fold.

Peruta v. San Diego Concealed Carry Appeal 10-56971 - Lost - 6-24-2016 & Onward

Did you notice that at the bottom of pages 13 and 30 the #NRA says that #OpenCarry is perverse?

On page 25 the #NRA says that the reasoning of the en banc panel decision in Peruta is deeply flawed. The en banc Peruta panel used the same reasoning that Justice Scalia used in the Heller decision. And when it came to concealed carry, all nine justices agreed that there is no Second Amendment right to concealed carry.

EDIT: Here is an article I wrote.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
141
Location
PA
Grammar counts

This was a well-written, grammatically correct cert. petition; unlike appellant's recent opposition to motion to extend time in Nichols v. Harris.
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
Honestly, I can't think of any right that is absolute.
Wrong

How about the right to ' think'.. I know, its not in the terse text, however read the 9th amendment and think,
the unwritten constitution.. Or simply think, natural law.. Key point.. " think'. Grasshopper.

My .02
Regards
CCJ
 
Last edited:

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
“The Second Amendment isn’t an absolute right,” Chemerinsky notes. Throughout British and American history, “there’s never been a right to have concealed weapons.”

But Eugene Volokh believes there’s a bigger issue at stake. If the state of California, which essentially bans open carry of a gun, makes it next to impossible for a typical citizen to get a concealed-carry permit, this is “tantamount to banning” the right to bear arms “except for a few favored people.”

Follow at SCOTUSblog http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/peruta-v-California/
A right need not be " absolute'.. it simply needs to be a Natural God given right..

Absolute right.. (1) A right that belongs to every human being, such as the right of personal liberty, a natural right. (2) An unqualified right; specif, a right that cannot be denied or curtailed except under specific conditions, freedom of thought is an absolute right.. For example, a plaintiff has an absolute right to voluntarily nonsuit a case before it is finally submitted, after final submission, the court has discretion to grant or deny a voluntary nonsuit.. ( black law pg 1436)..

The right to think, is an absolute right, in my humble opinion..

My .02
CCJ
 

DeSchaine

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2013
Messages
537
Location
Kalamazoo, MI
What really makes me want to get pitchforks and torches for the villagers is the fact that the "respondents" basically say in their briefs that there is no outright ban on carrying, they just don't allow it anyways because they don't want to.
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
How does either method of carry, concealed or open, violate or impede the rights of anyone else? I would argue either method does not violate or impede any rights of any other citizen..

Also it appears to me, that the fine barristers, arguing in support of the 2nd amendment, fail to frame a cogent argument, that any infringement on the right to keep an bear arms, not only violates the 2nd but also the 1st, 9th and 14th amendments..

A gun/weapon is in fact property, an a law abiding citizen has a right to possess property, the government should not be at liberty to dictate how a law abiding citizen display, carry, wear or hide said property, same as Government should not tell a citizen how to wear his or her shirt or hat.. Any law to the contrary is a violation of the first amendment right of expression.

The barristers, fail to invoke the 9th amendment when defending the 2nd, " The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, " shall not" be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people""..

Regarding the 14th Amendment to support the 2nd, in Mc Donald v City of Chicago (2010).. The supremes ruled
that the 2nd and 14th is applicable to all states..

The method of carry therefore should not even be an issue.. Same as how one decides to wear his shirt or hat, or display his/her property on ones property, aka a flag or statue on ones land..

Also we have a right, to life, liberty, happiness and property.. In obtaining property which is a right, one should not surrender his/her " right to privacy" while exercising his/her right to own property. Again another 9th amendment issue. See Griswold v Connecticut. ( for a more clearer view on privacy)..

Keep in mind that 21st century jurist, are not looking thru the same prism of 18th century jurist, in regards to our 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms.. Hence our arguments must be framed around other constitutional rights, that support each other in 21st century America jurisprudence.

My .02
Regards
CCJ
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Honestly, I can't think of any right that is absolute.
Wrong
How about the right to ' think'.. I know, its not in the terse text, however read the 9th amendment and think,
the unwritten constitution.. Or simply think, natural law.. Key point.. " think'. Grasshopper.
Oh, Joe, you're so smart and we're all so dumb in comparison.

Shall we include a few others?

How about the right to swallow?
Maybe the right to dislike the color mauve?
Do I have a god given right to digestion?

Your definition of rights and the classical one differ by a few degrees.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,677
Location
here nc
Oh, Joe, you're so smart and we're all so dumb in comparison.

Shall we include a few others?

How about the right to swallow?
Maybe the right to dislike the color mauve?
Do I have a god given right to digestion?

Your definition of rights and the classical one differ by a few degrees.
humm, would those and others be driven by nature or nurture?

or a little bit of column A and a little bit of column C?

just saying...

ipse
 

JamesCanby

Activist Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
1,480
Location
Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
Oh, Joe, you're so smart and we're all so dumb in comparison.

Shall we include a few others?

How about the right to swallow?
Maybe the right to dislike the color mauve?
Do I have a god given right to digestion?

Your definition of rights and the classical one differ by a few degrees.
+1

More than by a few degrees. He sees things through liberal/progressive glasses and believes his opinions, not even worth his .02, are facts.
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
Oh, Joe, you're so smart and we're all so dumb in comparison.

Shall we include a few others?

How about the right to swallow?
Maybe the right to dislike the color mauve?
Do I have a god given right to digestion?

Your definition of rights and the classical one differ by a few degrees.
Please cite..

It appears you still haven't read or cannot clearly understand the 9th amendment..
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
Oh, Joe, you're so smart and we're all so dumb in comparison.

Shall we include a few others?

How about the right to swallow?
Maybe the right to dislike the color mauve?
Do I have a god given right to digestion?

Your definition of rights and the classical one differ by a few degrees.
The rights you listed would fall under "unenumerated" rights.. The founders in their wisdom, clearly did not list every Natural right and or basic Constitutional right in the Constitution, IE right to breathe, or right to privacy.

The founders assumed that even quasi-intellectuals, like yourself, would be able to grasp the concepts of
" penumbra theory" and rights not necessarily found in the document, it appears based on your sophomoric discourse that the founders were incorrect, therefore again, let me suggest that you read, Griswold v Connecticut.

You see, " reading" in 21st century America, is now a "right"..

My .02
CCJ
 

Robin47

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
545
Location
Susanville, California, USA
How does either method of carry, concealed or open, violate or impede the rights of anyone else? I would argue either method does not violate or impede any rights of any other citizen..

Also it appears to me, that the fine barristers, arguing in support of the 2nd amendment, fail to frame a cogent argument, that any infringement on the right to keep an bear arms, not only violates the 2nd but also the 1st, 9th and 14th amendments..

A gun/weapon is in fact property, an a law abiding citizen has a right to possess property, the government should not be at liberty to dictate how a law abiding citizen display, carry, wear or hide said property, same as Government should not tell a citizen how to wear his or her shirt or hat.. Any law to the contrary is a violation of the first amendment right of expression.

The barristers, fail to invoke the 9th amendment when defending the 2nd, " The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, " shall not" be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people""..

Regarding the 14th Amendment to support the 2nd, in Mc Donald v City of Chicago (2010).. The supremes ruled
that the 2nd and 14th is applicable to all states..

The method of carry therefore should not even be an issue.. Same as how one decides to wear his shirt or hat, or display his/her property on ones property, aka a flag or statue on ones land..

Also we have a right, to life, liberty, happiness and property.. In obtaining property which is a right, one should not surrender his/her " right to privacy" while exercising his/her right to own property. Again another 9th amendment issue. See Griswold v Connecticut. ( for a more clearer view on privacy)..

Keep in mind that 21st century jurist, are not looking thru the same prism of 18th century jurist, in regards to our 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms.. Hence our arguments must be framed around other constitutional rights, that support each other in 21st century America jurisprudence.

My .02
Regards
CCJ

I agree, does the Bill of Rights mean what it said's, or are we not to "Ask Permission, and pay for it " to protect ourselves ?
Its a God given DUTY to be armed and protect ones self, and family and even ones neighbor if needed.
Jesus said so in the Bible Luke 22:36 If you don't have a weapon sell your coat and buy one !
I like that :)
So question is does the State have the right to deprive one from exercising there Christian belief ?
The 1st Amendment said's NO " Congress shall make NO law respecting the establishing of religion,or the FREE exercise thereof."
So all those who go against this Amendment 1 & 2 are oath breaks and are committing a federal crime under Title 5 U.S.C. section 7311.
However I guess taking an oath of office don't mean nothing any more. Sad :(
That's the only accountability "We the People" have to bind Officers & leaders to do the right thing !

Robin47
 

Robin47

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
545
Location
Susanville, California, USA
I agree, does the Bill of Rights mean what it said's, or are we not to "Ask Permission, and pay for it " to protect ourselves ?
Its a God given DUTY to be armed and protect ones self, and family and even ones neighbor if needed.
Jesus said so in the Bible Luke 22:36 If you don't have a weapon sell your coat and buy one !
I like that :)
So question is does the State have the right to deprive one from exercising there Christian belief ?
The 1st Amendment said's NO " Congress shall make NO law respecting the establishing of religion,or the FREE exercise thereof."
So all those who go against this Amendment 1 & 2 are oath breaks and are committing a federal crime under Title 5 U.S.C. section 7311.
However I guess taking an oath of office don't mean nothing any more. Sad :(
That's the only accountability "We the People" have to bind Officers & leaders to do the right thing !

Robin47
Hey this might be a good case for Religious Discrimination, just thought of that.
Under Luke 22:36, this AB 144 and AB 1527 is a violation of Christian duty and rights !
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,941
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
The Bill of Rights was written to restrict the Federal Government. The 14thA was written to ensure that States were also restricted. This is why religious freedom is written not in the form of the people shall have religious freedom, but with an establishment clause, the government shall not establish....

So identifying absolute rights from a document that is written from the point of view that the governments power is limited is never straight forward, and unfortunately those in black robes (who are part of the government) often make decisions that help the government chip away our rights.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,690
Location
Whatcom County
The Bill of Rights was written to restrict the Federal Government. The 14thA was written to ensure that States were also restricted. This is why religious freedom is written not in the form of the people shall have religious freedom, but with an establishment clause, the government shall not establish....

So identifying absolute rights from a document that is written from the point of view that the governments power is limited is never straight forward, and unfortunately those in black robes (who are part of the government) often make decisions that help the government chip away our rights.
The 14th Amendment did not give broad powers to the federal government to ensure states didn't restrict all rights.
It is very specific and about due process, and privileges.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,376
Location
White Oak Plantation
Oh, Joe, you're so smart and we're all so dumb in comparison.

Shall we include a few others?

How about the right to swallow?
Maybe the right to dislike the color mauve?
Do I have a god given right to digestion?

Your definition of rights and the classical one differ by a few degrees.
Swallow and digestion would fall under that "life, liberty, prosperity/happiness" thing. Mauve? A 1A thing.
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
The 14th Amendment did not give broad powers to the federal government to ensure states didn't restrict all rights.
It is very specific and about due process, and privileges.
Indeed.. + 1 million

One need only to read, two landmark Supreme Court Cases, Brown v Board Of Education and Bolling v Sharpe, both were decided on the same day 17th May, 1954

In Brown the court declared that State-sponsored racial segregation was "unconstitutional". The court also ruled in Bolling v Sharpe, the constitution barred the Federal Government from segregating the schools in the District of Columbia.

The principle that the federal government may not discriminate, is one that neither the text of the Constitution nor the original understanding can support; the Equal Protection Clause applies only to the states, NOT to the federal government, and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, on which Bolling relied, was adopted at a time when slavery was legal in half the United States and the slave trade was protected by the Constitution..

Both cases in my humble opinion, support the " living Constitution theory" and thank the Creator for said Constitution.

My .02
Regards
CCJ
 
Last edited:

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
The First Amendment didn't abolish or prohibit any state sponsored religions.

It just prohibited Congress from making any laws in respect to religion. At the time of the Constitutions signing and for many years thereafter more than one State had an official state religion. Even years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank (1876) still held that the First and Second Amendment did not apply to state governments. Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut and South Carolina funded their churches from the public treasury when that amendment was written and continued to do so for years afterwards.
 
Top