|
California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
(CO/10th Circuit) Peterson v. Martinez Official Appeal Thread
This will be the "official thread" for the appeal of in the district court decision of Peterson v. LaCabe. The case is now Peterson v. Martinez et al, United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Case #11-1149.
As RECAP does not work on appellate courts, I will be posting .pdf files in this thread. As an aside, I wish to give my thanks to those who have supported, both in spirit and financially, to the case, and give the greatest thanks to the CalGuns Foundation for supporting this critical litigation going upwards to the 10th Circuit. When Judge Miller made his decision quicker than expected and we needed to go up to the Tenth Circuit, CGF stepped in order to keep the litigation going up to the appellate level. UPDATE 12/17/2011: All pertinent Appellate Files are now uploaded to the following location to save you money looking at PACER. Also, for your convenience, the MP3 file of the oral argument is uploaded there for your listening. Peterson Appeals Folder Also, I took a few hours tonight to do an unofficial transcription, for the folks here who are more readers than listeners. It is attached to this post as "Peterson v. Martinez Unofficial Transcript" in pdf format... Last edited by Gray Peterson; 09-09-2012 at 6:56 PM.. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
I have high hopes, and feel strongly that you will prevail in this case.
I think you said 10 months to a hearing? Is it possible that you get a MSJ in your favor without the need for a hearing? Erik. |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
As for "10 months to a hearing". Try "4 to 6 months" (oral argument will occur either in September 12th week or November 14th week). Thinking about the scenarios here, the potential of a Williams v. State of Maryland cert grant might hold things up at some point. We will, however, proceed as normal and assume an upward trajectory. I am not actually hopeful for a Tenth Circuit win because not one lower court in the federal system has gotten the carry issue correct. I think really think that either as a first civil SCOTUS case for carry, or the map up for non-residency, both issues will be a "5 of 9" situation. |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Last edited by Gray Peterson; 12-18-2011 at 10:50 PM.. |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
Bump so this doesn't drop off so soon (being honest, since it's Easter Sunday ), but to also advise all;
I've modified my signature to link Peterson to this thread rather than the Archive page, that way a search doesn't need to be done for access, all they have to do is click on Peterson v. Garcia. And it looks like people can still donate to support your case. Erik. Last edited by Window_Seat; 04-24-2011 at 9:50 AM.. Reason: Linky get fixied |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
__________________
www.christopherjhoffman.com The Second Amendment is the one right that is so fundamental that the inability to exercise it, should the need arise, would render all other rights null and void. Dead people have no rights. Magna est veritas et praevalebit |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Filed Jan 2010??? I had no idea this had been going on for that long! Looking forward to the progress.
__________________
Hauoli Makahiki Hou ------- |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
Is a SCOTUS case the ultimate game plan, or does the team just want a win and are ok with it being in a lower court?
__________________
Need A Realtor in SoCal? Shoot me a PM. |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Given that I lost in district court, it was I who could appeal upwards to the Tenth Circuit. If any of you remember the Parker case in 2007 in the DC Circuit. We won that one. There was a big question of whether or not DC would appeal to the Supreme Court. They attempted to get it up to en banc, but they were smacked down 6-4. Though the Brady Campaign, Mayor Daley, and numerous others were begging DC not to appeal, Mayor Fenty decided to appeal because politically, a strike down of the handgun ban without taking EVERY available option was not in political cards for Mayor Fenty. Whereas the power brokers of the gun control movement wanted him to not appeal, the local politics did not support the last ditch effort. Fenty appealed, and the rest is history. It's possible that we could win in the Tenth Circuit, and Colorado/Denver will not appeal to the SCOTUS. If we lose though, a SCOTUS appeal is in the cards, and yes it's being tee'd up for it. Last edited by Gray Peterson; 04-24-2011 at 3:36 PM.. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Refresh my memory, the goal is one of two things: Either Denver must allow OC like the rest of CO, or, non-residents must be allowed to get a CO CCW. The odd CO law not honoring non-resident(3rd party) is not in play, as this would moot the case but provide little in the way of a usable precent. Is this correct?
|
#13
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Exactly I thought. We shall know...in
__________________
Need A Realtor in SoCal? Shoot me a PM. |
#14
|
||||
|
||||
Some Clarification.
This case is more than just 2nd amendment, it is 9th amendment(right to travel) and equal protection(14th amendment).
Let's step back for a minute and forget the 2nd amendment. Colorado's law discriminates against people strictly based on their state of residence. A California resident cannot CCW legally in Colorado because Colorado doesn't recognize California CCW permits and if that Californian had a Utah or FLorida permit, those would be no good either even though Colorado will recognize permits issued by Florida or Utah for their state residents. Could this case hit the SCOTUS, who knows. If it does, it opens alot of issues. The 4 justices who can't seem to read the 2nd amendment might do better on the 14th amendment. Nicki |
#15
|
||||
|
||||
@nicki...."A California resident cannot CCW legally in Colorado because Colorado doesn't recognize California CCW permits and if that Californian had a Utah or FLorida permit, those would be no good either even though Colorado will recognize permits issued by Florida or Utah for their state residents."....what the hell! That doesn't make any sense. Oh these damn laws.
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The stupid lawmakers' intent in CO was to simply have CO residents carry only on a CO permit, but sloppily wrote the law so now non-residents are also affected. I heard rumors NM was also thinking about doing this as well. They can't seem to figure out that they can just single out their own residents for this rule and leave non-residents out, just like it is in many other states. |
#17
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
|
#18
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
if you live there, you have some form of ID as proof. IIRC a out of state CCW was enough to prove you had gone through CCW class. So it was just a question of finger print back ground check, fill out application (i dont remember if i brought in pic's or they took them)..... But the process took under a 1/2 at the police station. Actually, I think it took under 15 mins. I don't see that being any more intrusive then, and less of a hassle then having to change your D/L when you move there. I understand this fight is all about getting Co/Denver into reciprocity, and I'm all for it. I just don't see how parker applies. Denver/Co has a very liberal shall issue CCW policy, thereby providing a mechanism for law abiding residents to carry a handgun in public for self defense Sorry if I'm peeing on your parade, and truly don't mean to. Maybe I'm missing something here with respect to your post, not your case. I get that your case hinges on equal protection clause now that the 2a is incorporated, you are trying to expand Mcdonald's "keep", to "BEAR". Last edited by sreiter; 04-26-2011 at 12:48 AM.. |
#19
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Residents are not effected by this lawsuit, except violations of their civil rights in the future would now be addressable in federal court rather than just purely state court, especially if we win in the 10th Circuit. |
#20
|
||||
|
||||
Denver had [has?] its own crazy set of laws when i lived there 7 yrs ago. Like if you lived in Denver, you couldn't buy a AW, but the rest of Co you could. IIRC, you need a DENVER CCW to CCW in Denver, and be a resident of Denver to get a Denver CCW or something like that.
The good news though, is if you have a face, you can get a Denver CCW. Clean background check, proof you're a resident, a CCW course. Very minimal. There was a law suit against denver because people driving through denver would become criminals for some gun related something (i thought it was ccw, maybe a AW), but because it was legal in the rest of CO, it was like "people driving through might miss the city limit. Anyway, I know Denver, has/had its own unique set of bazaar laws that needed to be dealt with. |
#21
|
||||
|
||||
question, is the wiki wrong, or I'm i reading the constitution wrong
"GeorgiaCarry.org v. Toomer is a cousin case filed against a county probate judge (who are the issuing authorities for firearms licenses in Georgia). Peterson differentiates from the GeorgiaCarry.org case due to the plaintiff applying for and being denied the license by Denver, and a denial of a license or registration is considered automatically an injury under Article III of the United States Constitution." http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html Article 3 - The Judicial Branch Section 1 - Judicial Powers Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials Section 3 - Treason is this more applicable/what you mean? Article IV - The States Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. Section 2 - State citizens, Extradition The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. Or more to the point, the 14a Equal protection? Again, apologies if i'm missing something/totally misconstruing everything/don't understand one word i read Last edited by sreiter; 04-26-2011 at 12:51 AM.. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Good points, but I think that Gray and company are working at a pretty strategic level. I'm not sure exactly how this ties into everything else that is going on, but Peterson v Garcia seems likely to be of significance at the national level in ways that may not be immediately apparent.
I don't even bother to track exactly how or why. Gray and company are very sharp operators and I'm happy to leave the lead to them on these things. My expertise is elsewhere. |
#23
|
||||
|
||||
i know i'm still focused on right to travel, even though you keep saying the AG changed the scope to 2a....but i can't think of a valid 2a argument, other then the "bear" section. And, maybe i'm not smart enough to see this as the "perfect" case to challenge bear at the SCOTUS level, again, IANAL, but from the few scotus case's i've read, etc. I don't know if this case rises to the level of being granted cert.
again, maybe i'm just not smart enough to be catching on. |
#24
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I say yes it does grant the right to carry. Assuming that it does, SCOTUS simply cant say that one only has that right in their state of residence. Depending on wording states would likely still be able to require licenses, and still decide what licenses to recognize. However they would have to allow some way to exercise the right, whether through reciprocity or through non-resident permits. Admittedly this is a very brief, simple, and inexperienced analysis. The important thing to take away is that its less about right to travel than it is about 2A. Why is it the best? I can't say with any degree of certainty that it's the best, but its good, and Gray is a solid plaintiff. I don't have a deep enough understanding of all the cases working their way up to formulate an opinion as to which is best.
__________________
Quote:
Last edited by Connor P Price; 05-02-2011 at 9:58 PM.. Reason: clarification |
#25
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Last edited by sreiter; 05-03-2011 at 12:16 AM.. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Since there is no national reciprocity, and since all rights not reserved by the fed become reserved by the states, the states can enter into agreements with other states about reciprocity. They can choose who the want to deal with and who they don't.
This is one thing I think the Feds may have legitimate involvement with. States aren't supposed to make special deals with only certain states, even though in the case of reciprocity most of it is because the anti-gun states don't want any reciprocity,period. |
#27
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
NY/NJ have the port authority, a joint venture. Didn't we enter into a special deal with Nevada about water rights, etc.? It does however open up the interpretation of the commerce clause, which has been used to support the registration requirement under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act. so if the fed can regulate that..... although the court ruled in United States v. Alfonso Lopez, Jr that the clause didnt include the power to regulate the gun free school zone, which it had tried to do. Last edited by sreiter; 05-03-2011 at 2:09 AM.. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
When the courts completely skip out on their responsibility to strike down intentionally unconstitutional laws, the probability is that things will get much worse on the legislative+judicial rubber stamping front before they get better (what we hope will be favorable SCOTUS rulings before any of the Heller 5 retire or die).
|
#29
|
||||
|
||||
You are operating under numerous false assumptions, equal protection is not only for residents, its for everyone. CCW in colorado is a right not a policy, they have a very robust 2A equivalent and laws protecting the right to carry. So if the case is decided there it must be treated as such.
Drawing analogies to drivers license as you have is also not proper. First because driving has nothing to do with a fundamental right and second because there is already national reciprocity there. There would never be a need for a non resident dl because all state dls work everywhere. Lastly, you seem to mistake the distinction between this case being decided in the 10th or the possibility of SCOTUS. As far as you question regarding california having to issue non resident permits you fail to acknowledge that california its only effected if the decision is made by the supremes. That means that if they declare carry to be protected under the second california would have to issue to residents. Not just non residents. Its unlikely that the supremes would draw out a particular system for carry, that would likely be left up to the states. What with their sovereignty and all. States could probably decide between concealed, open, or both, but no carry would be unacceptable if the right is protected. Its also likely that states could decide who to grant reciprocity to. However if the right its affirmed, they can't deny it based on lack of residence, states would have to recognize other permits or grant their own non resident permits. National reciprocity will be found through the legislature. Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk
__________________
Quote:
|
#30
|
||||
|
||||
CCW in colorado is a right not a policy, they have a very robust 2A equivalent and laws protecting the right to carry. So if the case is decided there it must be treated as such.[/quote]
if it were as robust as you claim, Denver wouldn't be able to do what it does. Quote:
D/L's are valid for travel, however, you are expected to follow local laws. Quote:
This case is about non-resident CCW ONLY. Thats what will be decide. How you think SHALL ISSUE to residents will be thrown in is beyond me. |
#31
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Check your PM's. |
#32
|
||||
|
||||
This seems to be the game changer that makes your case a great one to bring before SCOTUS. Would you tend to agree or am I off base here?
__________________
Quote:
|
#33
|
||||
|
||||
if my most recent sophomoric analysis is correct, then i believe it is a game changer, and possible juggernaut ! i know, i know "possible juggernaut" is almost a oxymoron!
|
#34
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
My non-lawyerly mind is spinning. On one hand, I can see that expanding the issue, on the other hand, the suit is still a challenge to their "non-residential" [non] issuance. That Is the question that ultimately would be put before the court. "Does Denver have to issue non-resident ccw permits". as opposed to the question "does the 2a apply outside the home, and therefore must everyone be afforded a means to carry outside the home" That is what you're suing for, isn't it? So while their AG is offering (what i assume is) various arguments why they don't have to issue because the 2a doesn't exist outside the home, and while I'm sure you will have excellent retorts that will be 100% correct from a con law stand point. I mean wtf was he thinking saying the 2a only exists in the home, with 100,000s if not more gun owners in Co. I don't think the court will give a blanket ruling "the 2a exists outside so everyone must be issued some form of carry throughout the land." Depending if, where, and how the judges address that argument, as opposed to simple equal protection arguments, in their opinion, this could open the door for future cases where the question put before the court would be "do we the people have the right to carry outside the home (limited by reasonable regulation) " Again, they may or may not address the argument. They may aaddress it through dicta. But at least now i can see what the end game is thanks grey....lol - I actually asked as one of the first questions what was i missing about this case.....had you answered with your last post....it would have saved a whole lot a time....lolol thanks....and i actually have nothing further to say.... like i said, maybe i wasnt smart enough to catch on. at least it was because i didnt have enough info....or i'm still not catching on, but i'm think i am, so i'm good with it...lolololol |
#35
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
DILLIGAF "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don't rule out malice" "Once is Happenstance, Twice is Coincidence, Thrice is Enemy Action" "The flak is always heaviest, when you're over the target" |
#37
|
||||
|
||||
Sreiter, you have good points, I'm not disputing that. There are two sides to all of these things, that's why there has to be litigation.
As far as your comment about if they have such a robust right to bear then why can Denver do what it does? I would contend that they can't, and they will lose this case. Unfortunately that's the way our system works, the government gets to pass bogus laws that are in direct contradiction to superior laws. We don't find out that they "can't" legally do that until it gets litigated. So how can Denver do what they're doing if they can't "legally" do it. The same way DC and Chicago had handgun bans until Heller and Mcdonald told them its not allowed. They just haven't been told they can't do that yet.
__________________
Quote:
|
#38
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
One of my best friends owned(no longer a brick and mortar store), the largest gun store in Co. for 20 years - Dave's guns There were many challenges to denvers laws, and to my knowledge, denver woon them all. i dont know the outcome of the assualt weapon ban denver had still in pace when the rest of Co expired with the national ban. i know there was a suit, just moved before the outcome, so it didnt matter to me. |
#39
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I still feel that because this case cuts to the very core of the right to bear arms for self defense that it will have to be looked at with greater scrutiny than the other laws.
__________________
Quote:
|
#40
|
||||
|
||||
It probably doesn't help that I muddy up the water with my sophomoric views on things. lol. Gray's case is incredibly interesting though, so i can't help but be intrigued by the discussion.
__________________
Quote:
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|