http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=307407All,
I'm pleased to announce that today, John Monroe of Georgia Carry fame filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in Peterson v. LaCabe. This is a case brought by our own Gray Peterson (who is a WA resident but spends lots of time here in California helping the fight) challenging Denver and Colorado's lack of carry license reciprocity and lack of an ability to issue carry licenses to out of state residents.
The Calguns Foundation has been providing legal support and, while not directly paying for the costs, is providing assistance raising funds for this challenge. This helps all out of state residents as it will either force issuance of permits to out of state individuals or will widen the scope of Colorado's reciprocity.
Please donate to the Peterson v. Lacabe fund by one of the following means:
Gunpal:
Paypal:
Or send a check or money order to:
Calguns Foundation
3200 Bridge Parkway Suite 202C
Redwood City, CA 94065
Mark on the check "Peterson v. LaCabe"
-Gene
1JimMarch 1JimMarch is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 863
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default
This could have a lot of California impact. Like CO, Cali is discriminating against out-of-state residents but if anything, it's California that's much more "hardcore" about it.
If Cali has to suddenly issue to out-of-staters, that means they have to revise their CCW rules sooner rather than later. And all sorts of fed-level rules against "arbitrary or capricious" handling of administrative law could kick in. It's barely possible this could force CCW reforms (for everybody, in state or out) faster than even Sykes can go through the courts.
Reply With Quote
This was the case I was hinting at with the various different threads that I've posted about "Bearing arms" and "non-resident licenses".
Someone here might ask "Why Denver and Colorado?" rather than California?
1) Unlike California, Colorado Statute has a provision in it that specifically identifies acquirement of a CHL to further the constitutional right to self defense. This weakens the argument of Denver, which has fight bitterly against the state of Colorado for almost 4 years before being fought to a stand-still in front of the Colorado Supreme Court before winning partially 3-3
2) This case has been in the planning stages for almost 2 years. I had to go down to Denver to apply, and was denied on paper, which gave me Article III standing automatically.
3) Denver has an open carry ban as well as a concealed carry ban. The only way one may carry in Denver is concealed with a CHL. Since Denver refuses to allow open carry, they must allow concealed carry in some form. At the moment, the MSJ is very narrowly focused to striking down the ban on non-residents of the state applying for licenses from Denver.
4) We are also challenging the ban on recognition of non-resident licenses (I have licenses from Florida, Utah, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania), which was passed in 2007 in response to incidents where someone was carrying as a Colorado resident on an out of state license. Rather than fixing the issue similar to Arizona, Washington State, and Kansas, they chose to overreach. The MSJ at this moment is solely against LaCabe as Manager of Safety of the City/County of Denver in terms of issuance of licenses. There may be a further MSJ or trial against the Peter Weir, who is the Executive Director of Colorado DPS.
5) California residents are effected by the Colorado situation as well, as they cannot travel to the most populated city in one state and bear arms effectively, due to the Colorado Legislature's overreach.
6) This will influence case law outside of Colorado, as we used the denial of the Peruta v. County of San Diego motion to dismiss to bolster our case. All cases such as this feed into each other in terms of supporting each other. If this goes all the way to SCOTUS, will be able to force the states such as CA, OR, HI, NY, NJ, MI, and a few other jurisdictions that currently escape me, to issue license to carry (bear arms) for personal protection regardless their "in-state residency". More importantly, a positive decision at ANY level can help us with Sykes, Palmer, and several other cases.
Reply With Quote
