• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

9th Circuit - "Good Cause" Requirement Unconstitutional

Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
7,734
Likes
4,856
Location
My forest stronghold
I thought Peruta had Gura. Or was that his earlier lawsuit that he lost a couple of years ago?

You see, you all know much more about this than I do. ha.

With the backing of SAF and the Calguns Foundation, Alan Gura was the attorney for Richards v. Prieto (was Sykes v. McGuiness). Richards (NRA) and Peruta were 'competing' right-to-carry cases in CA. In the end they both lost in the district and were heard by the same appellate panel which chose to lead with Peruta.
 
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
7,734
Likes
4,856
Location
My forest stronghold
Yesterday Plaintiff-Appellant Peruta filed an opposition to motions to intervene filed by the California AG, the Brady Center, and another.

Opposition.

On Friday The State of California and the Brady Campaign each filed reply briefs in support of their respective motions seeking intervenor status.

Reply in Support of Motion to Intervene by State of California
Reply in Support of Motion to Intervene by Brady Campaign

The 9th Circuit's Peruta page with all filings can be found here.

The Brady Campaign's brief is a particularly pathetic attempt to stop this train. In their brief they assert standing due to the harm that will be suffered by their members if the "good cause" requirement is dropped. What is that harm? The harm their members will suffer is fear. They will be afraid to go out in public, that's the harm.

I doubt the Brady Campaign is especially proud of this work and they're hiding it from their (few) supporters. No Tweets and nothing on their website.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
10,243
Likes
1,407
On Friday The State of California and the Brady Campaign each filed reply briefs in support of their respective motions seeking intervenor status.

Reply in Support of Motion to Intervene by State of California
Reply in Support of Motion to Intervene by Brady Campaign

The 9th Circuit's Peruta page with all filings can be found here.

The Brady Campaign's brief is a particularly pathetic attempt to stop this train. In their brief they assert standing due to the harm that will be suffered by their members if the "good cause" requirement is dropped. What is that harm? The harm their members will suffer is fear. They will be afraid to go out in public, that's the harm.

I doubt the Brady Campaign is especially proud of this work and they're hiding it from their (few) supporters. No Tweets and nothing on their website.

The courts have not been very kind to the Brady group the past few years, except a few in the northeast. They might just be punch drunk right now and they're just flailing in their weakening state.
 

Quiet

Banned
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 31, 2013
Messages
9,698
Likes
1,810
Location
2122 N. Clark St.
On Friday The State of California and the Brady Campaign each filed reply briefs in support of their respective motions seeking intervenor status.

Reply in Support of Motion to Intervene by State of California
Reply in Support of Motion to Intervene by Brady Campaign

The 9th Circuit's Peruta page with all filings can be found here.

The Brady Campaign's brief is a particularly pathetic attempt to stop this train. In their brief they assert standing due to the harm that will be suffered by their members if the "good cause" requirement is dropped. What is that harm? The harm their members will suffer is fear. They will be afraid to go out in public, that's the harm.

I doubt the Brady Campaign is especially proud of this work and they're hiding it from their (few) supporters. No Tweets and nothing on their website.

Interesting in light of the wording of the ruling in Simkin where it says IIRC [paraphrased] "that they suspect that citizens might become alarmed by a non-law enforcement person carrying, but Simkin is not responsible for that given a permit to allow him to do exactly that."

I don't know if Brady will get standing at this late point in this case with that argument, but has this argument been used anywhere else? Perhaps it's a trial balloon inside a lost cause.
 

terraformer

NES Member
Rating - 100%
32   0   0
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
16,917
Likes
2,618
Interesting in light of the wording of the ruling in Simkin where it says IIRC [paraphrased] "that they suspect that citizens might become alarmed by a non-law enforcement person carrying, but Simkin is not responsible for that given a permit to allow him to do exactly that."

I don't know if Brady will get standing at this late point in this case with that argument, but has this argument been used anywhere else? Perhaps it's a trial balloon inside a lost cause.

You need to parse the simkin decision carefully. It's an inkblot. They don't say that under no circumstances can ones fear trump another's rights. It's just in the situation where Simkin was provided no notice his behavior would cause him to lose his license. Had the FRB noticed Simkin that open carry or that discovery of his carry status alarmed others, there is a good chance that case would have went another direction.
 

JJ4

NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Jan 15, 2013
Messages
3,007
Likes
1,524
Location
South Central MA
On Friday The State of California and the Brady Campaign each filed reply briefs in support of their respective motions seeking intervenor status.

Reply in Support of Motion to Intervene by State of California
Reply in Support of Motion to Intervene by Brady Campaign

The 9th Circuit's Peruta page with all filings can be found here.

The Brady Campaign's brief is a particularly pathetic attempt to stop this train. In their brief they assert standing due to the harm that will be suffered by their members if the "good cause" requirement is dropped. What is that harm? The harm their members will suffer is fear. They will be afraid to go out in public, that's the harm.

I doubt the Brady Campaign is especially proud of this work and they're hiding it from their (few) supporters. No Tweets and nothing on their website.

Thanks for the summary. Is the state's response reasonable? I guess I just don't get why they didn't intervene in the case originally.

The Brady Campaign is absurd! Oh my god, I have fear of gays/straights/mexicans/blacks/whites/italians/indians. So if you get them their constitutional rights I'm harmed by those people on the streets. U.S. Constitution, Amendment Sqrt(-1): The right of the people to live free from fear shall be absolute.
 
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
38,829
Likes
17,677
The Brady Campaign is absurd!
Agreed, however, many courts are hostile to non-LEO carry and will look for anything on which to hang a hat. I'd never make a bet on an absurd argument from the other side not being used as such a hook.
 
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
7,734
Likes
4,856
Location
My forest stronghold
Thanks for the summary. Is the state's response reasonable? I guess I just don't get why they didn't intervene in the case originally.

The Brady Campaign is absurd! Oh my god, I have fear of gays/straights/mexicans/blacks/whites/italians/indians. So if you get them their constitutional rights I'm harmed by those people on the streets. U.S. Constitution, Amendment Sqrt(-1): The right of the people to live free from fear shall be absolute.


Well, since Peruta didn't oppose the state's motion to intervene, the state's reply irrelevant.
 

Quiet

Banned
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 31, 2013
Messages
9,698
Likes
1,810
Location
2122 N. Clark St.
Had the FRB noticed
[*]
Simkin that open carry or that discovery of his carry status alarmed others, there is a good chance that case would have went another direction.

[*]
[you meant "notified", I assume]
if so, well, that pretty much sums up Massprudence right there.

We don't have a situation where any law or FRB rule has notified people that the discovery of someone carrying causing alarm is justification for revocation.

How many levels deep of "what ifs" do we need to play?

If not, then you're saying that they didn't revoke based on nor argue that point?


==============================================
ETA

Anyway, my point was that if there is an interest in this "fear" angle, and the only thing allowing a person to generate that fear is the permit to do so.... it could be a dangerous avenue and it should not be "taken lightly" and should be attacked with vigor.
 
Last edited:
Rating - 100%
27   0   0
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
12,175
Likes
1,247
So Brady is claiming standing because they're afraid. If being afraid constitutes damages, the country is over.
 

NewGuyRay

NES Member
Rating - 100%
11   0   0
Joined
Feb 18, 2013
Messages
1,113
Likes
762
Location
Just North of Boston
While the Brady petition is absurd at best and certainly weak legal argument, it does provide some interesting insight into the minds of these people.

The specific harm they cite is a fear of an increase in violent crime caused by removal of the "good cause" requirement. Now, I will concede that there can be some reasoned debate as to the existence of a link between an increase in carry by law abiding citizens and the decrease in violent crime in every place where a decrease in violent crime has occurred. However, I am personally unaware of any credible study that claims to show a causal link between an increase in carry by law abiding citizens and an increase in violent crime.

The Brady petition is a window into the world of irrational fear these people live in. In their delusional minds, many rationalize that no one can desire to carry a firearm in public absent nefarious intent. Others in the group are apparently convinced that firearms have a mind control capability that turns any law abiding citizen who possesses one into someone of criminal intent.
 

Quiet

Banned
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 31, 2013
Messages
9,698
Likes
1,810
Location
2122 N. Clark St.
While the Brady petition is absurd at best and certainly weak legal argument, it does provide some interesting insight into the minds of these people.

The specific harm they cite is a fear of an increase in violent crime caused by removal of the "good cause" requirement. Now, I will concede that there can be some reasoned debate as to the existence of a link between an increase in carry by law abiding citizens and the decrease in violent crime in every place where a decrease in violent crime has occurred. However, I am personally unaware of any credible study that claims to show a causal link between an increase in carry by law abiding citizens and an increase in violent crime.

The Brady petition is a window into the world of irrational fear these people live in. In their delusional minds, many rationalize that no one can desire to carry a firearm in public absent nefarious intent. Others in the group are apparently convinced that firearms have a mind control capability that turns any law abiding citizen who possesses one into someone of criminal intent.

The fear angle is being pushed hard and from different angles. They seem to be saying that the harm is that people are afraid just to be around guns -- which is true irrational though it may be.

it's a dangerous (for us) argument if it can gain a legal toe hold anywhere.
 

dcmdon

NES Member
Rating - 100%
31   0   1
Joined
Jan 27, 2009
Messages
13,231
Likes
2,844
Location
Southeastern CT and Boston Metro West
Ray,

The antis often point to higher murder rates in southern states compared with northern states with strict gun laws. The truth of the matter is that southerners are more violent overall. What they often fail to include in the discussion is the simple fact that in northern states with free gun laws, the murder rate is usually even lower.

Spend some time looking this over:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...n_geographic_division_and_state_2011-2012.xls

You will see data showing what seems obvious. Places like NH and VT have less murder than MA or CT. But that places like Arkansas, MS, TN, AL,and KY have murder rates 2x what MA has, but also have 3 to 5x what NH and VT have.
 

NewGuyRay

NES Member
Rating - 100%
11   0   0
Joined
Feb 18, 2013
Messages
1,113
Likes
762
Location
Just North of Boston
Ray,

The antis often point to higher murder rates in southern states compared with northern states with strict gun laws. The truth of the matter is that southerners are more violent overall. What they often fail to include in the discussion is the simple fact that in northern states with free gun laws, the murder rate is usually even lower.

Spend some time looking this over:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...n_geographic_division_and_state_2011-2012.xls

You will see data showing what seems obvious. Places like NH and VT have less murder than MA or CT. But that places like Arkansas, MS, TN, AL,and KY have murder rates 2x what MA has, but also have 3 to 5x what NH and VT have.

In the court of public opinion, proving a correlation between gun ownership and crime rates is often at least adequate. In a court of law though, the government should be required to prove causation to justify infringements on our rights.
 

Quiet

Banned
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 31, 2013
Messages
9,698
Likes
1,810
Location
2122 N. Clark St.
Ray,

The antis often point to higher murder rates in southern states compared with northern states with strict gun laws. The truth of the matter is that southerners are more violent overall. What they often fail to include in the discussion is the simple fact that in northern states with free gun laws, the murder rate is usually even lower.

Spend some time looking this over:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...n_geographic_division_and_state_2011-2012.xls

You will see data showing what seems obvious. Places like NH and VT have less murder than MA or CT. But that places like Arkansas, MS, TN, AL,and KY have murder rates 2x what MA has, but also have 3 to 5x what NH and VT have.
What that doesn't take into account is the actual cause and effect which was that stricter gun laws were enacted because of the higher crime rates, but had no effect.
 

bigblue

NES Member
Rating - 100%
32   0   0
Joined
Feb 20, 2013
Messages
14,602
Likes
3,644
Ray,

The antis often point to higher murder rates in southern states compared with northern states with strict gun laws. The truth of the matter is that southerners are more violent overall. What they often fail to include in the discussion is the simple fact that in northern states with free gun laws, the murder rate is usually even lower.

Spend some time looking this over:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...n_geographic_division_and_state_2011-2012.xls

You will see data showing what seems obvious. Places like NH and VT have less murder than MA or CT. But that places like Arkansas, MS, TN, AL,and KY have murder rates 2x what MA has, but also have 3 to 5x what NH and VT have.

The cause and effect here has nothing to do with gun laws. This is purely income-driven: crime rates in general are proportional to unemployment and poverty rates. Those states listed have high poverty rates, low education, high unemployment, low standard of living, etc. Compare Apples to Apples not AAPL to Google...
 

Garys

NES Member
Rating - 100%
82   0   0
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
18,919
Likes
3,523
Location
Stoughton
I see a lot of the typical northerner slights against the south, but I'll leave that alone.

An examination of the effects of concealed weapons
laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder
rates


IV. Results and Concluding Remarks

Results are presented on Table 1. The CCW dummy
variable is significant and positive, but the assault weap-
ons ban is insignificant. Given that the average gun-
related murder rate over the period in question was
3.44, the results of the present study indicate that states
with more restrictive CCW laws had gun-related murder
rates that were 10% higher. In addition, the Federal
assault weapons ban is significant and positive, indicat-
ing that murder rates were 19.3% higher when the
Federal ban was in effect. These results corroborate the
findings of Lott and Mustard (1997). These results sug-
gest that, even after controlling for unobservable state
and year fixed effects, limiting the ability to carry con-
cealed weapons may cause murder rates to increase.
There may, however, be other explanations for these
results. Laws may be ineffective due to loopholes and
exemptions. The most violent states may also have the
toughest gun control measures. Further research is war-
ranted in this area
 
Top Bottom