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

    1. “. . . 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.
      Until then, it’s wishful thinking to imagine that concealed-carry will be deemed to be a Right under the 2A. This situation is not necessarily a bad position to be in; provided, of course, that one has the creative mind to make lemonade. Peruta puts us in a very interesting position. It is indisputable that there IS a right-to-carry; albeit the courts have not yet decided what that Right is. The 9’th Circus has put the CA legislature in a very vulnerable position. Now, the path of least resistance appears to be for SCOTUS to rule that there IS a Right to OPEN-carry rendering the CA prohibition against open carry a nullity. That would make CA a Constitutional-Open-Carry State overnight. (The sort of situation the circuit court put the IL legislature.) That could push the CA legislature into making concealed-carry Shall-Issue. No doubt, on onerous terms; but, nevertheless, Shall-Issue.
      We PotG harbor a fantasy that there is some nuclear option that will restore the 2A to our individual wet dreams. It doesn’t work like that. We have to invest in a long campaign at the Federal, State and neighbor level before we have a realistic expectation of progress.

        1. @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 executive or the congress would assert their constitutional powers then the silly assertion of Cooper v. Aaron would fade like smoke in the wind.

          1. 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.
            In the end, the laws enforced by the executive are passed by the legislative body and are applied by the judicial body. If-and-to-the-extent that we think they got it wrong our courses of appeal include: voting for legislators; pursuing litigation; civil disobedience; a constitutional convention; civil war. Which do you favor with respect to liberalizing the law on concealed carry? (Maybe you have some 6’th course I haven’t thought of.)
            My view is that we ought to push forward on multiple courses; leaving civil war to the last possibility. Most importantly, we need to get our neighbors to warm up toward the idea of carry in public places.
            It is futile for a minority group (such as we PotG) to simply gather together to piss and moan, finding new ways to articulate our opinions that our government got-it-wrong on some issue. It does no good. It advances the ball not-at-all.
            To be perfectly clear, I do not like the power the judicial system has accumulated to itself over the centuries. Unfortunately, I don’t have a really great idea for re-arranging the powers of the 3 branches of the Federal government to improve the situation. Even if I had an idea I favored, it would take a convention of the States to impose it. All this seems very unlikely.
            Is it true that SCOTUS has the power to determine the constitutionality of a law? I’m not entirely convinced that it does; but my opinion (and yours and that of every other individual) counts for nothing. What counts is that which was explained to us by Chairman Mao: Political power emerges from the barrel of a gun. When the American people compel a different solution (other than SCOTUS asserting this power) we will have a different system. You may laugh at the situation that prevails today; I weep. In any case, its the system we work within until we decide to go to the mat.

          2. 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 this is by design. The politicians are throwing dough against the wall and seeing what sticks. This gets back to our responsibility as voters to not elect such politicians, but we are voting for selfish rather than principled reasons.

    2. 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?

      1. 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 question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. ”

        “Likewise, in State v. Chandler, 5La. Ann. 489, 490 (1850), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that citizens had a right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.”

        “In Nunn v. State, 1Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the “natural right of self-defence” and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right:”

        “In Nunn v.State, the Georgia Supreme Court struck down a prohibition on carrying pistols openly (even though it upheld a prohibition on carrying concealed weapons). See 1 Ga., at 251. In Andrews v. State, the Tennessee Supreme Court likewise held that a statute that forbade openly carrying a pistol “publicly or privately, without regard to time or place, or circumstances,” 50 Tenn., at 187, violated the state constitutional provision (which the court equated with the Second Amendment). That was so even though the statute did not restrict the carrying of long guns. Ibid.”

        Not from Heller, although Robertson v Baldwin was mentioned, but in a different context.

        Robertson v Baldwin 165 U.S. 275 (1897) ” …..the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;..” (fifth and thirteenth amendment case)

        1. 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 criteria will get a permit. The general idea in the 19th century was that concealed carry was “sneaky” but I can see a very good reason for carrying concealed. It is less awkward, especially in certain environments, to have the gun concealed.

    3. 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

      1. 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

    Leave a Comment 11 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *