Twenty Two Gun Rights Organizations File Brief in ‘Peruta’ ‘Right-To-Carry’ Lawsuit

FPC Submits Coalition Brief and Second Amendment lawsuit plaintiffs argue that the Peruta decision should stand.

Gun and Gavel
FPC Submits Coalition Brief to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Peruta v. San Diego Carry Lawsuit
Firearms Policy Coalition
Firearms Policy Coalition

SACRAMENTO, CA — -( While millions of Californians were preparing to celebrate the holiday season, attorneys for the Firearms Policy Coalition were busy filing an amici curiae brief to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the matter of Peruta v. San Diego, a lawsuit challenging the discretionary “may issue” handgun carry permit policies of San Diego Sheriff William Gore.

Bradley Benbrook and Stephen Duvernay of the Sacramento-based Benbrook Law Group penned the “friends of the court” brief on behalf of a diverse coalition of eleven Second Amendment civil rights organizations and eleven individuals who are parties to ‘right-to-carry’ lawsuits within the Ninth Circuit.

Following issuance of the Ninth Circuit’s February 13, 2014 panel decision that held Gore’s “heightened good cause” carry license application policy to be unconstitutional, the sheriff decided not to appeal the case further. In a February 21 press release, the sheriff said that “it is….the judiciary’s responsibility to interpret [laws] and their constitutionality,” and that “[l]aw enforcement’s role is to uphold and enforce the law.”

California Attorney General Kamala Harris, who opposes Second Amendment civil rights and allowing law-abiding people to carry handguns for self defense in public, then sought to intervene in the case — a request that the Ninth Circuit denied in November 2014. But that wouldn’t be the end of the Peruta litigation. In an interesting turn of events, the Court issued two subsequent orders in early December: One asking for briefing on the Peruta panel’s denial of Harris’ request to intervene, and another on the Court’s sua sponte (“on its own motion”) call for a vote for an en banc (“full court”) review of the panel’s February decision on the merits.

The Firearms Policy Coalition brief effectively addresses both of those issues, concluding that “the Court should not rehear this case en banc.”

The Firearms Policy amici argued to the Court that “the State lacks standing to defend the county’s interest in this case because it has no role in the enforcement of the challenged policy,” but that even if the Court somehow found Harris to have standing to intervene, she should still not be allowed to participate as a party because “[c]onferring standing on the Attorney General here would invite state officials to meddle in litigation at their leisure—potentially disrupting the legal rights of those who actually hold them.”

“The California Attorney General’s office has long taken the position that plaintiffs who sue over a county’s policy for issuing concealed-carry permits lack standing to sue the Attorney General,” explained the amici, “because it has ‘no role in CCW license decisions.’ ”

“These very same arguments demonstrate why the Attorney General does not have standing to defend San Diego County’s policy—the Attorney General played no role in the underlying injury and cannot redress it.”

FPC’s brief can be viewed or downloaded at

The complete list of amici who joined the brief are as follows:

Institutional Amici

  • California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees, Inc.
  • Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc.
  • Firearms Policy Foundation, Inc.
  • Florida Carry, Inc.
  • Gun Rights Across America
  • Hawaii Defense Foundation
  • Illinois Carry
  • Knife Rights Foundation, Inc.
  • Liberal Gun Owners Association
  • Madison Society, Inc.
  • Pink Pistols

Individual Amici (parties to materially similar or legally-identical cases)

  • Christopher Anderson
  • Christopher Baker
  • Jonathan Birdt
  • Michael Dozier
  • Ari Friedman
  • David Marcinkus
  • Ari Miller
  • Tom Scocca
  • Sigitas Raulinaitis
  • Rima Raulinaitis
  • Robert Thomson

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) is a non-profit organization that serves its members and the public through direct and grassroots advocacy, legal efforts, technology, and education. The purposes of FPC include defending the Constitution of the United States and the People’s rights, privileges and immunities deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition, especially the inalienable, fundamental, and individual right to keep and bear arms.

Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Most likely reason the AG asked for this is to assess how better to make the law so fewer people can be allowed carry. Anti-‘s will stop short of nothing to promote their agenda, changing laws to fit their agenda, and to force pro-2A elements to expend money to fight their tyrannical laws. They intend to bankrupt the civilian population that supports its rights, so that in the future, they have no opposition. This is how Obama/Soetoro won two of his 3 elections/erections.


Hoisted on her own petard.



My Rights Exist Before the Constitution , Or the Formation Of This Nation , …. So tell me Esquires , Do I have… ” Standing ” ? Or is standing only for the corporate united states chartered out of Delaware ? See Brushaber Vs. Union Pacific Railroad , : Re Jurisdiction. This is why the NRA and others fail , Stop playing their ” game ” !! Do Better. Do Not Be Sidetracked By Legalese. Let the courts DARE to say that My Rights come from ” it ” (funny that ) What part of “Shall Not Be Infringed ”… Read more »