NRA & CRPA Petition U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Peruta v. County of San Diego

California Rifle & Pistol Association Special Alert
California Rifle & Pistol Association Special Alert
California Rifle & Pistol Association
California Rifle & Pistol Association

California – -(Ammoland.com)- On Thursday, January 12, NRA and CRPA attorneys submitted a petition to the United States Supreme Court to review the NRA and CRPA supported case of Peruta v. San Diego.

The case made history in 2014 when a 3-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit held that the San Diego County Sheriff’s restrictive “good cause” policy for the issuance of a concealed carry license violates the Second Amendment.

But shortly after that decision, the Ninth Circuit took the rare step of deciding to rehear the case by an 11-judge “en banc” panel who overturned the 3-judge panel opinion last June. The Petition explains it all. Give it a read!

But now the tides have changed. As a result of the NRA’s efforts in the November election, there has never been a greater opportunity to protect the right to keep and bear arms in California and throughout the United States. And with President-elect Donald Trump set to nominate at least one if not several pro-gun judges to the Supreme Court, NRA and CRPA are working hard to make “shall-issue” a reality in California. In addition, several new NRA/CRPA lawsuits will soon be launched against Proposition 63 and the seven new “Gunmageddon” anti-gun bills signed into law this past year.

It takes great resources to fight for our rights in the courts. So please make a generous tax-deductible donation to the CRPA Foundation to help finance the Peruta case and soon to be filed lawsuits. And consider joining the CRPA, the NRA’s official state association, if you aren’t already a member. NRA and CRPA are working closely together to do great things in California.

Your tax-deductible donation to the CRPA Foundation will help us win these battles!

Please stand with the NRA and CRPA as we work to capitalize on the tremendous victory in the presidential election and preserve our right to keep and bear arms for generations to come! To learn more about the CRPA Foundation, visit the website.

You can also learn more about the Peruta case by watching this video, and by reading this article from NRA’s America’s 1rst Freedom.

About CRPA & CRPAF

The California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA), founded in 1875, is a nonprofit 501 (c)(4) membership and donor supported organization. CRPA employs staff in Fullerton and Sacramento, works with hundreds of volunteers across the state, and is controlled by an independent Board of Directors. Some of CRPA’s non-profit efforts are funded through CRPA’s sister organization, the CRPA Foundation (CRPAF). CRPAF is a 501(c)(3) organization, so contributions to the CRPAF are tax deductible.

All dues and donations to CRPA and CRPAF are spent to specifically benefit California gun owners. CRPA works relentlessly in California to defend your constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Your CRPA membership dues and donations help CRPA to fight for your right to choose to responsibly own and use firearms for hunting, sport, or to defend yourself and your family.

CRPA has tens of thousands of members who represent a diverse cross-section of the general public. CRPA members include civil rights activists, competitive and recreational shooters, hunters, youth, women, police, firearm experts and trainers, and loving parents.
CRPA is proud to be the official state association of the National Rifle Association (NRA). CRPA works with the NRA as a team in California. CRPA and NRA complement and enhance each other’s ongoing efforts to fight for your rights in Sacramento, in cities and counties across the state, in regulatory agencieas, and in the courts. By working together, CRPA and NRA multiply their effectiveness, accomplishing more by working together on your behalf than either could accomplish working alone or separately in California.
  • 11
    Leave a Reply

    Please Login to comment
    3 Comment threads
    8 Thread replies
    0 Followers
     
    Most reacted comment
    Hottest comment thread
    8 Comment authors
    Anon45876Gary SanfordDonLaRueMarkPAWild Bill Recent comment authors
      Subscribe  
    Notify of
    MarkPA
    Guest
    MarkPA

    “. . . all nine justices agreed that there is no Second Amendment right to concealed carry.” There is the crux of the problem, stated in no clearer terms than I could compose. We PotG need to wake-up and smell the facts. It doesn’t matter one whit whether you or I or a majority of Americans think about the 2A’s applicaiton to concealed carry. What 5 out of 9 justices believe is the way we decide what the Constitution is. Want to change that? Get 51% of the voters in 38 States to compel their legislators to amend the Constitution.… Read more »

    Richard L
    Guest
    Richard L

    What the hell is “PotG” ?

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @Mark, you claim that all nine justices agreed that there is no Second Amendment right to concealed carry. What is the case citation? If we had a constitutional convention, we could easily end up with no Second Amendment at all. The belief that “What 5 out of 9 justices believe is the way we decide what the Constitution is.” is a fiction based upon a case called Cooper v. Aaron (1958) wherein the S. Ct claimed that it interpretation of the Constitution is supreme to the other two branches. An assertion that is clearly and humorously untrue. If the chief… Read more »

    MarkPA
    Guest
    MarkPA

    You seem to understand your American Constitutionality pretty well; perhaps better than I. I didn’t know about Cooper v Aaron; I should look it up. I thought only of Marborough v. Madison. In any case, if you review the 19th century judicial decisions at mostly the State and less-so the Federal level you will find precedent for: support for the Right to carry openly; repugnance for the practice of carrying concealed. Let’s suppose they were all wrong; they got it perfectly backwards. OK, nevertheless, the way our judicial system works is that much weight will be given to these precedents.… Read more »

    Anon45876
    Guest
    Anon45876

    I don’t see the silliness of it. The Supreme Court is supreme to the other two branches when it comes to interpreting law. This is the very job of the Supreme Court. Where this is not true is in courts that legislate from the bench. This is, ultimately, up to as voters to not elect people who are known to put activist judges on the bench. Congress, for its part, knows that few cases wind up before the courts (especially the Supreme Court) because there is only so much time in a day. The courts are all back logged, and… Read more »

    MarkPA
    Guest
    MarkPA

    People of the Gun; i.e., those who use guns or support the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

    AlohaCQB
    Guest
    AlohaCQB

    Educate me, if concealed carry is not allowed, and open carry is not allowed, then all you’re left with is no carry. So their decision effectively blocks exercising our second amendment rights. Am I missing something?

    DonLaRue
    Guest
    DonLaRue

    What you’re missing is that Peruta sought a concealed carry license only. That left open carry off the table, irrespective of any argument moved forth by his attorneys. If one wants to open carry, then that has to be what is sought from the inception of the case. Justice Scalia essentially indicated by his reasoning in the DC v Heller decision that concealed carry is not protected under the 2nd Amendment, and therefore this case will be denied certiorari. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, (2008) ” For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the… Read more »

    Anon45876
    Guest
    Anon45876

    Yes, but the point is that both concealed and open carry have been prohibited in some states. This does prevent the bearing of arms in those states. The Heller case says that open carry is a right, but not concealed. So what does Peruta do? Sue because he was denied a concealed carry permit. This, as the case law stands, is doubtful to succeed under a 2nd Amendment argument. It might be successfully argued along the lines of equal application of the law in may issue states and force a change to shall issue where anyone meeting a set of… Read more »

    Charles Nichols
    Guest
    Charles Nichols

    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.

    Charles Nichols
    President of California Right To Carry
    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org
    https://www.facebook.com/CaliforniaRightToCarry/
    https://www.youtube.com/user/CaliforniaRTC
    https://twitter.com/CRTC_Nichols
    Piryx (Debit/Credit/E-Check) – https://secure.piryx.com/donate/oQHhxxyh/CaliforniaRightToCarry/
    PayPal (Debit/Credit/E-Check) – http://tinyurl.com/PC12031Lawsuit
    Bitcoin: 1AdtAJfcdBkA777fwtVhmCwSwCKGTFrgGz

    Gary Sanford
    Guest
    Gary Sanford

    Virtually all 2nd ammendment (and abortion and gay marraige) jury outcomes are predictable based on the political affiliation of the executive who appointed the judges. That’s a fact. Heller won because 5 Bush/Reagan appointees vs 4 Obama/Clinton appointees. Peruta won in 2014 because 2 Bush/Reagan appointees vs 1 Clinton appointee.
    Peruta lost in 2016 because 7 Clinton appointee vs. 3 Bush/Reagan (and, astonishingly, 1 Clinton) appointee, totalling 7 to 4. Experts can write endless research papers and supporting arguments until their fingers fall off, but at the end of the day it’s all about politics