Ed Peruta Comments on the Peruta Case in the Ninth Circuit

Gun Watch ^ | 6 April, 2015 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

Ed Peruta initiated the lawsuit that became the Ninth Circuit Court case, Edward Peruta v. County of San Diego.  Not a lot has been written about the man who initiated the case with the potential to reform all the "may issue" concealed carry laws in the country.    Recently, Mr. Peruta wrote a comment about the Ninth Circuits decision to hear the case en banc.  I found the comment on a Hawaii publication.   Here it is.   From civilbeat.com:

I have this comment regarding today's ruling from the Ninth Circuit:

San Diego Sheriff Bill Gore has had the authority to issue Concealed Carry Permits to any non prohibited individual in San Diego County since before my application in 2008.

What I find hard to understand is the fact that every individual in California who possesses a valid Concealed Carry Permit, particularly those in Orange County to the north, are permitted by law to carry a concealed firearm for self defense in San Diego County while law abiding residents of San Diego County are denied the equal right to do likewise.

Sheriff Gore by denying law abiding residents of San Diego the right to carry firearms demonstrates his absolute disrespect for rights of every citizen in San Diego county.

I believe that every law abiding resident of San Diego County should be able to exercise their Second Amendment Right to carry a firearm for self defense, and thank the NRA for their continued support in my case.

Regardless of what the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decides in my case, the fact that Sheriff Gore has issued Concealed Carry Permits to those who are politically, socially or financially connected to San Diego politics is a matter of great concern that every resident of San Diego should be concerned with.

Ed Peruta

I was able to contact Mr. Peruta, and he generously allowed me to ask him some questions about the case.  There is too much to put in this one article.  Mr. Peruta is articulate, intelligent, and passionate.    He knows what he is doing, and he did not enter the fray as an uninformed naif.   

Most people do not know that Mr. Peruta is a legal investigator for one of the most prominent firearms attorneys in Connecticut, Rachel M. Baird.  He understands the law and knows how to read statutes.  I was especially interested in his statement that "Sheriff Gore has issued Concealed Carry Permits to those who are politically, socially or financially connected to San Diego politics..."  

I asked Mr. Peruta about this allegation.  He responded by explaining that in the early part of the lawsuit, there was a period of discovery.    From Ed Peruta:

"We were able to to go in and  look at all of the good cause statements and applications of existing valid permit holders."

He said that you could look at at least one of the applications, and the "good cause" statement was "almost identical" with his.     His personal information did not stop with a look at the people who already had permits in San Diego County.  He also related as to how he was discouraged from applying for a permit.  He was told by a person at the Sheriff's office:

"Don't waste your money.  You are probably not going to be approved, so don't waste your money."

The Sheriff's office also demanded that he pay five times the appropriate amount to apply for the permit.  Under California law, they are supposed to take 20% of the fees.  If the permit is approved, they collect the rest of the fees.  The San Diego Sheriff's office was demanding 100% up front.  Ed Peruta notified them of their violation of the law, and cited penal code 12054.  He demanded a refund of the excess.  The Sheriff's office eventually backed down.  From Ed Peruta:

"They sent me a check.  I cashed it."

The check was for $50.51. Mr. Peruta calls it the first firefight of the battle. Mr. Peruta served as a Marine, so he understands military analogies. He has military privileges that allow him to keep a vehicle at a military storage facility in San Diego, and he has relatives that keep his "Southern California wardrobe" with them, so he is able to fly without baggage, and spend time in Southern California as he desires.

The Sheriff's office asked him where he voted.  He told them that it did not matter where he voted.  They told him that he would have to go to Los Angeles to apply for a permit. 

It was after that that Mr. Peruta retained attorney Paul Newharth for a substantial amount of personal funds. 

I asked Mr. Peruta if there was a specific point that he thought was missing from most of the coverage of the case.   He made this observation:

San Diego Count is almost the exact same number of square miles as the State of Connecticut.  There are about the same number of residents of San Diego Count as there are in the State of Connecticut.  There are 2,000 permits in San Diego.  There are over 200,000 permits in Connecticut.

Mr. Peruta also mentioned that any California resident who has a permit from Orange County, California, or any other Californian county, can legally carry concealed in San Diego, but almost no San Diego residents are allowed to do so.

In 2009, Ed Peruta said "People might be surprised that I am a dyed in the wool liberal  Democrat."  In our conversation, he said "That was in 2009.  I am not a Democrat anymore."

Mr. Peruta has plans to speak in San Diego County on April 25th.  I will have more details in a later article.

©2015 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

[marktwain]

Ed Peruta is an interesting guy. He has a reputation as a gadfly of local governments in Connecticut

[raybbr]

bfl

[barefoot_hiker]

Aside from the Second Amendment issue here, what I’ve never understood is how is it constitutional for the government to treat citizens subjectively when issuing permits for anything?

If I pass the DMV driving, written and eye tests can the clerk say I don’t really “need” a drivers license because I can walk, call a cab or take a bus? Or I apply for a building permit, meet the objective criteria and the inspector says I’m not getting the permit because I don’t really “need” a room addition on my house.

There should be no such thing as “may issue” for any government permit system. You meet a set of objective criteria, you get the permit. Period.

[marktwain]

Exactly correct. The entire idea of an official making subjective decisions about who can get what benefit is a direct throwback to the “rule of men” instead of the “rule of law”.

Much of our whole legal system was designed to prevent exactly this situation. But “progressives” love it because it gives the state enormous power.

[marktwain]

A lot of “zoning” is subjective as well, and for the same reason. It gives the local elites tremendous power.

Most zoning codes start off with something like: anything not specifically permitted by this code is illegal.

[glasseye]

“Sheriff Gore has issued Concealed Carry Permits to those who are politically, socially or financially connected to San Diego politics...”

Same thing where I live in Santa Clara county.
It’s who you know/which skids you have greased.
“Rule of men”, absolutely.

[Godzilla]

“Sheriff Gore has issued Concealed Carry Permits to those who are politically, socially or financially connected to San Diego politics...”

Some animals are more equal than others. . . . . .

[mulnir]

While living in the City of Poway in the northern part of San Diego county, a close friend of mine was denied his CCW permit due to the fact that his father already had one. That was the official reason for denial. I never bothered to try to get one for myself after that, just took my tax dollars to Idaho and never looked back.