LA county CCW lawsuit filed

[FMCDH]

Nordyke just ended so there is nothing else in the 9th circuit since Richards and peruta will be remanded. It is intentionally narrow so I am glad you see that. Nordyke set us back years because it was all over and the same will happen to Richards and peruta because the decisions were based on open carry. The constitution allows them to pick oc or cc but they have to allow- that is the narrow issue and they have no wiggle room. The other two motions in la are even more narrow- should be a good 2a summer. Somewhere next year we will have a clear 2a opinion from a circuit court on the outside the home issue.

Excellently reasoned argument and well structured. I agree with another poster who said that in an ideal world, this should be a slam dunk. But until it gets to SCOTUS, I don't see a favorable outcome.

Having just been relocated to California on military orders, I hope you are successful for all our sakes. I had been considering applying for a CWL in Sonoma County just to see what the outcome might be, but having just gotten here, I haven't done the research. I figure if a trained member of a federal law enforcement agency who has 6 other CWL/CPLs from other states cant be trusted, who can?

I think we all know what the outcome will likely be however.

 

[ConditionThree]

Excellently reasoned argument and well structured. I agree with another poster who said that in an ideal world, this should be a slam dunk. But until it gets to SCOTUS, I don't see a favorable outcome.

Having just been relocated to California on military orders, I hope you are successful for all our sakes. I had been considering applying for a CWL in Sonoma County just to see what the outcome might be, but having just gotten here, I haven't done the research. I figure if a trained member of a federal law enforcement agency who has 6 other CWL/CPLs from other states cant be trusted, who can?

I think we all know what the outcome will likely be however.

A what?


That would be a California License To Carry. If you are interested in applying, it will be beneficial to look into the Calguns foundation website. http://calgunsfoundation.org/

 

[badger54]

Excellently reasoned argument and well structured. I agree with another poster who said that in an ideal world, this should be a slam dunk. But until it gets to SCOTUS, I don't see a favorable outcome.

Having just been relocated to California on military orders, I hope you are successful for all our sakes. I had been considering applying for a CWL in Sonoma County just to see what the outcome might be, but having just gotten here, I haven't done the research. I figure if a trained member of a federal law enforcement agency who has 6 other CWL/CPLs from other states cant be trusted, who can?

I think we all know what the outcome will likely be however.

If your a Federal LEO wouldn't you be covered by LEOSA? Unless your a military member of OSI or CID.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

 

[FMCDH]

If your a Federal LEO wouldn't you be covered by LEOSA? Unless your a military member of OSI or CID.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

Only select jobs within the Coast Guard would be covered by LEOSA. My current job is not one of them.

The Coast Guard is a paramilitary federal "multi-mission" law enforcement agency. Many of the jobs within it are focused on law enforcement, but most are mission support.

 

[Difdi]

They are our "protectors." Bah, humbug. LEOs are never there when you need them. They are always arriving at the scene after the dastardly deed is done.

So if they are our protectors, wouldn't that mean they have a duty to protect us from criminals?

 

[Gray Peterson]

An update

All three of Mr. Birdt's concealed carry cases have failed in the US District Court for the Central District of California.

Also, Mr. Birdt's prediction that Richards and Peruta would be remanded has also not panned out. The 9th Circuit will likely hear oral arguments in November. Also, a preliminary injunction appeal is ahead of Mr. Birdt's case (Baker v. Keolaha from Hawaii).

In either case, it proves that the filing of the carry cases in the Central District of California was fruitless. Simply put, Richards would have accomplished the final goal in the 9th circuit. Also, Richards is a facial challenge to GC/GMC due to prior restraint principles. Like the Brown v. Entertainment Software Association, a federal judge ruling on a facial challenge has effect across the entire state. Peruta is a narrower challenge to the good cause policy of San Diego County Sheriff's Office.

Mr. Birdt has extreme difficulty complying with Circuit Rules, specifically Rule 28-2.6

View attachment StatusofRelatedCases.pdf

On May 23, 2012, appellant Birdt expressly misstated in his opening brief
that per Ninth Circuit Rule 28-2.6 “there are no related cases pending at the
appellate level.”Id. at 22. Instead, he listed two cases as potentially related – both
of which he is counsel in – that at the time of filing his opening brief were pending
decision before district courts. Id.4 Mr. Birdt should have listed Peruta, Richards,
Mehl, and Rothery as related cases.5 Mr. Birdt waived oral argument in his appeal
(likely in hopes of possibly expediting its decision ahead of Peruta and Richards).