Peruta v. County of San Diego

From Calguns Foundation Wiki
Revision as of 23:33, 2 October 2010 by Crom (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

Peruta v. County of San Diego

EDWARD PERUTA, MICHELLE LAXSON,
JAMES DODD, DR. LESLIE BUNCHER,
CALIFORNIA RIFLE AND PISTOL ASSOCIATION FOUNDATION

       Plaintiffs,
   v.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,
WILLIAM D. GORE
INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS 
CAPACITY AS SHERIFF,

      Defendants.

Introduction

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.

Status

The case is case number 3:09-cv-02371-IEG-BGS. Docket filed in U.S. District Court Southern District of California

 FUTURE EVENTS

* May 16, 2011 - Final Pretrial Conference set for 5/16/2011 10:30AM in Courtroom 01 before Judge Irma E. Gonzalez

* Dec. 9, 2010 - Mandatory Settlement Conference Set for 09:00 AM in Courtroom 12 before Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal.

* Nov. 1, 2010 (or soon after) - Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment shall be argued.

^This motion asks the court to rule in favor of Plaintiffs in that Defendants’ policies and procedures 
challenged in this litigation violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution
and unlawfully infringe upon Plaintiffs’ rights.  The rest of the arguments in dispute will still go forward to trial.
  • July 14, 2010 - Joint Motion for Protective Order GRANTED Signed by Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal - A protected order will protect the privacy records of all the individuals for whom CCW licenses have :been denied or granted over the last several years. All the license applications and records will be critically examined by Plantiff's counsel.

Commentary and Analysis

Calguns Discussion Threads

Intent

This suit seeks to do two things.

  1. Seeks to either find "good cause" as unconstitutional or establish "self defense" sufficient for the California's "Good Cause" requirement.
  2. Issue CCW licenses to all plaintiffs.

NOTE: County residency requirements were an issue early on in this case. However, an inspection of the undisputed facts in support of the partial MSJ filed on 9/3/2010 clearly shows that the residency requirement is no longer in dispute. This basically means that the County has ceded the challenge that Ed Peruta is a resident of San Diego County.

Case Files

All files are here