Charles Nichols, president of California Right to Carry, writes:
For the record, my personal opinion is that the Second Amendment applies throughout the Nation regardless of where one resides or is domiciled. However, it is not my personal opinion that counts in a court of law, it is the opinions published by judges that decide an issue as far as the courts are concerned. In a classic case of shoot the messenger, Ed Peruta took a potshot at me for reporting the fact that the district court judge in his lawsuit held that Mr. Peruta was a non-resident and therefore ineligible for a California CCW license . . .
Mr. Peruta’s lawyer, Chuck Michel, appealed that finding by the district court to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals did not decide the question of Mr. Peruta’s residency.
The only issue decided on appeal was whether or not San Diego Sheriff Gore’s refusal to accept self-defense as “good cause” for the issuance of a concealed carry permit was constitutional. The Court of Appeals held that the policy was unconstitutional and remanded the case back to the district court for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals did not make the determination that any of the Plaintiff’s are entitled to a CCW. The Court did not issue an order requiring the issuance of a permit to anyone, let alone to the plaintiffs and certainly not to Mr. Peruta.
In a related concealed carry case out of Ventura County the district court judge held that:
“[T]he Court has analyzed the legislative history pertinent to Section 26150’s use of the term “resident.” That history evidences an intent that county sheriffs grant CWPs only to those persons who are physically present within their respective counties to an extent consistent with the concept of “domicile.”Based on the legislative history located, the Court concludes that it was reasonable for the [Ventura County Sheriff’s Office] to construe Section 26150 to impose a residency requirement “akin to domicile,”…”
Peruta admits that his domicile is not in California -> “Mr. Peruta told TTAG that his Rocky Hill, Connecticut home is his legal domicile.”
Peruta is not domiciled in San Diego County. The court of appeals did not overturn the district court’s finding that Peruta is not a resident.
The crux of my original article is that until all of the named plaintiffs either obtain a CCW or remove themselves as plaintiffs from the case (Peruta v. San Diego) the Peruta case cannot become moot, despite the wishes of the SAF lawyer Alan Gura who opened that particular can of worms, not me.
Fortunately, all of the relevant briefs are online for anyone to read for free at the website of Mr. Peruta’s lawyer Chuck Michel → http://michellawyers.com/guncasetracker/perutavsandiego/
Particularly relevant are:
Peruta Circuit Court decision -> http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/order-12.10.10.pdf
In which the district court held that Mr. Peruta was not a resident:
“For the reasons stated below, in differentiating between residents (and part-time residents who spend more than six months of the taxable year within the County) and non-residents, Defendant utilizes means that are substantially related to a substantial governmental interest. Because residents and non-residents are situated differently, the residency requirement of Defendant’s policy does not violate equal protection. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ equal protection claim as it relates to Defendant’s residency requirement.”
Peruta Appellate Opening Brief -> http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Peruta-Opening-Brief.pdf
In which Mr. Peruta’s lawyer appealed the district court’s finding of non-residency:
“V. THE DISTRICT COURT RELIED ON ERRONEOUS AUTHORITY IN ANALYZING PLAINTIFF PERUTA’S RESIDENCY CLAIMS” (page 60 of Peruta Opening Brief).
The details of Mr. Peruta’s living arrangements are found in the many briefs and declarations filed with the district court. I would remind Mr. Peruta that his declarations were signed under penalty of perjury. Posting articles which contradict what he claimed in the district court puts him at risk of a felony prosecution, a conviction to which would prohibit him from even possessing a firearm anywhere.
There is an old adage often attributed to Mark Twain which goes something like “It is better to remain silent and thought the fool than to open one’s mouth and leave no doubt.”
That applies doubly to someone whose mouth could put him in prison.