Case 3:09-cv IEG -BGS Document 46 Filed 10/18/10 Page 1 of 29

Transcription

1 Case 3:0-cv-0231-IEG -BGS Document 46 Filed // Page 1 of 2 C. D. Michel- SBN 48 Clint B. Monfort - SBN Sean A. Brady - SBN cmichel@michellawyers.com 3 MICHEL & ASSOCIATES, P.c. 0 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite Long Beach, CA 0802 Telephone: (562) Facsimile: (562) Attorneys for Plaintiffs / Petitioners Paul Neuharth, Jr. (State Bar #03) pneuharth@sbcglobal.net 8 PAUL NEUHARTH, JR., APC 40 Union Street, Suite 2 San Diego, CA 01 Telephone: (6) Facsimile: (6) Attorney for Plaintiffs / Petitioners I I EDWARD PERUTA, MICHELLE LAXSON, JAMES DODD, DR. LESLIE BUNCHER, MARK CLEARY, and CALIFORNIA RIFLE AND PISTOL ASSOCIATION FOUNDATION v. Plaintiffs, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, WILLIAM D. GORE, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS SHERIFF, Defendants ) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) CASE NO: 0-CV-231 leg (BGS) ) ) CONSOLIDATED ) OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION ) FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND; ) ) REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION ) TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL ) SUMMARY JUDGMENT ) ) Date: November,20 ) Time: :30 a.m. ) Location: Courtroom 1 ) Judge: Hon. Irma E. Gonzalez ) Date Action Filed: October 23, CV-231lEG (RGS)

2 Case 3:0-cv-0231-IEG -BGS Document 46 Filed // Page 2 of 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 Page(s) 3 ARGUMENT. 4 I. PLAINTIFFS' SEEK TO HAVE THIS COURT CONSTRUE PENAL CODE 050 IN A CONSTITUTIONAL MANNER, NOT TO HAVE IT OVERTURNED. 5 II. THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS DOES NOT END AT ONE'S 6 THRESHOLD III. A. "Bear Arms" Means Carry, Including in Public 3 B. The County Confuses Cases That Ban All Carry with Cases That Ban Some Fonn of Carry " 5 STRICT SCRUTINY IS THE APPROPRIATE STANDARD OF JUDICIAL REVIEW A. The "Presumptively Lawful" Language in Heller Does Not Preclude Strict Scrutiny Judicial Review B. Intermediate Scrutiny Is Inappropriate, Especially after Mcdonald C. Undue Burden / Reasonable Regulation Review is Also Inappropriate D. The Trend After McDonald Is Toward Adopting Strict Scrutiny Judicial Review IV V. 23 VI. 26 THE COUNTY CANNOT MEET ITS BURDEN TO SHOW AN INTEREST IT IS ACTUALLY FURTHERING THAT JUSTIFIES ITS SPECIAL NEEDS "GOOD CAUSE" POLICY 11 A. The County Has Provided No Credible Evidence Establishing That Issuing CCWs to Law Abiding Citizens Will Increase Violent Crimes or Otherwise Adversely Affect Public Safety 11 B. The Cases Relied on by the County Are Unpersuasive PLAINTIFFS HAVE ESTABLISHED THEIR EQUAL PROTECTION CLAIMS A. The County's Special Needs Policy Creates a Class ofpeople Ineligible to Obtain a CCW B. There Are No Material Factual Disputes Regarding HDSA Member's Unequal Treatment DISPUTES OF MATERIAL FACT EXIST ON THE COUNTY'S OTHER CLAIMS, WInCH SHOULD BE DENIED A. The Facts Suggest PlaintiffPeruta Was Denied a CCW for Lack ofresidency B. Peruta's Right to Travel Was Violated When Denied a CCW Based on His Part-time Residency CV-231 leg regs)

3 Case 3:0-cv-0231-IEG -BGS Document 46 Filed // Page 3 of 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS, Cont VII. 5 VIII. Page(s) C. The Facts Support Plaintiffs' Due Process Claims FAClAL CHALLENGE AND QUALIFIED IMMUNITY ISSUES 20 CONCLUSION ii 0-CV-231 TRG (RnSl

4 Case 3:0-cv-0231-IEG -BGS Document 46 Filed // Page 4 of 2 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 3 SUPREME COURT CASES Page(s) Attorney Gen. ofn. Y v. Soto-Lopez, 4 46 U.S. 88 (86) 5 Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 4 (6) 6 City ofcleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 43 U.S. 432,440 (85) 8 City ofl.a. v. Alameda Books, Inc., 535 U.S. 4,438 (2002) DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. ofsoc. Servs., 48 U.S. (8) 11 District ofcolumbia v. Heller, 8 S. Ct. 83 (2008) passim Gonzalez v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 4, 6 (200) Harman v. Forssenius, 380 U.S. 5, 540 (65) Harper v. Va. State Bd. ofelections, 383 U.S. 663, 60 (66) 20 1 Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 45 U.S. 800, 806 (82) 20 Johnson v. California, 543 U.S. 4,5 (2005) 8 20 Kramer v. Union Free Sch. Dist., 35 U.S. 6,626- McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S._0S.Ct.3020(20) passim 23 Muscarello v. United States, 5 U.S. 5 (8) 3 R.A. V v. City ofst. Paul, 505 U.S. 3, 30 n.6 (2) 8 26 Robertson v. Baldwin, 5 U.S. 5, 1-2 () 5 Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v Doe, 530 U.S. 20 (2000) CV-231 ffifhrgs)

5 Case 3:0-cv-0231-IEG -BGS Document 46 Filed // Page 5 of 2 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES, Cont. 2 Page(s) 3 United States ex rei. Attorney Gen. v. Del. & Hudson Co., 4 2 U.S. 366 (0). u.s. v. Hall, 5 No. 2: , 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (S.D.W. Va., Aug. 4,2008) 5 Village ofwillowbrook v. Olech. 5 U.S. 562 (2000) Wardv. Rock Against Racism, 41U.S.81(8) Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 34 (8) 11 FEDERAL CASES Bowers v. De Vito, 686 F.2d 6, 6 (th Cir. 82) Erdelyi v. O'Brien. 680 F.2d 61 (th Cir. 82) Freeman v. City ofsanta Ana, 68 F.3d (th Cir. 5) 1 Heller v. District ofcolumbia (Heller II), 68 F. Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C. 20) Joyce v. Mavromatis, 83 F.2d 56,5 (6th Cir. 86) 20 Kachalsky v. Cacace, No (S.D.N.Y. filed July,20) 6 Kellogg v. City ofgary, 562 N.E.2d 685 (Ind. 0), 23 March v. Rupf, No , 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 08 (N.D. Cal. 2001) Miller v. Reed, 16 F.3d 02, (th Cir. ) 2 26 Monarch Travel Servs., Inc. v. AssociatedCultural Clubs, Inc., 466 F.2d 552,554 (th Cir. 2) 2 Nordyke v. King, 563 F.3d 43, 460 (th Cir. 200) 5 IV 0-CV-231 leg (RG~)

6 Case 3:0-cv-0231-IEG -BGS Document 46 Filed // Page 6 of 2 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES, Cont. 2 Page(s) Parker v. District ofcolumbia, 3 48 F.3d 30, 3 (D.C. Cir. 200) Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, Peruta v. County ofsan Diego, 5 68 F. Supp. 2d 46, 55 (S.D. Cal. 20) 3,4,6,11, 6 Presbyterian Church (US.A.) v. Us., 80 F.2d 5, 5 (th Cir. 8) Thornton v. City ofst. Helens, 8 4 F.3d 18 (th Cir. 2005) United States v. Engstrum, 60 F. Supp. 2d, (D. Utah 200) United States v. Aguilar, F.2d 662, 06 (th Cir. 8) STATE CASES Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. 5 (1) Aymette v. State, Tenn. (2 Hum.)4 (40) 6 Bliss v. Commonwealth, 1 Ky. (2 Litt.) 0 () City oflakewood v. Pillow, 501 P.2d 44 (Colo. 2) 6 Dano v. Collins, 20 6 Ariz. 3 (Ct. App. 0) Fife v. State, 31 Ark. 455 (6)... 6 Glasscock v. City ofchattanooga, 23 Tenn. 5 () Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 3, 1 (46) , People v. Dykes, Cal. 4th 31 (200) People v. Flores, Cal. App. 4th 568 (Ct. App. 2008) 2, 3 v 0-CV-231 TEG (RGS)

7 Case 3:0-cv-0231-IEG -BGS Document 46 Filed // Page of 2 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES, Cont. 2 Page(s) 3 People v. Hale, 4 43 Cal. App. 3d 353, 356 (Ct. App. 4) 3, People v. Hodges, 5 0 Cal. App. 4th 48, 5 (Ct. App. ) People v. Marin, 5 N.E.2d 53 (Ill. App. 2003) People v. Yarbrough, 8 Cal. App. 4th 303 (Ct. App. 2008) 2 Junction City v. Mevis, 601 P.2d (Kan. ) 6 Riddick v. United States, 11 5 A.2d 2 (D.C. App. 20) 6 Schubert v. DeBard, 38 N.E.2d 3 (Ind. Ct. App.80) 1 Sims v. United States, 63 A.2d, 8 (D.C. App. 2008) 6 State ex rei. City 0/Princeton v. Buckner, ]6 3 S.E.2d (W. Va.88) State o/wisconsin v. Schultz, 1 No. -CM-8,sIipop. (Wis. Cir. Oct.,20) 11, State v. Buzzard, 4 Ark. (42) State v. Chandler, 20 5 La. Ann. 48 (50) State v. Jumel, La. Ann. 3(58) 6 State v. Kerner, 23 S.E. 2 (N.C. ) State v. Reid, 1 Ala. 6 (40)..... State v. Rosenthal, 26 55A. 6(Vt.03) State v. Smith, 51 A.2d (N.H. 0) VI 0-CV-231 leg rhgs)

8 Case 3:0-cv-0231-IEG -BGS Document 46 Filed // Page 8 of 2 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES, Cont. 2 State v. Workman, Page(s) 3 5 W. Va. 36 (1) 6 4 Wilson v. State, 5 33 Ark. 55 (8) 6 6 STATUTES & RULES Cal. Pen. Code 0(a) 1,2,3 8 Cal. Pen. Code 031 1, 3 Cal. Pen. Code 031(a) 1,2,3 local. Pen. Code 050 1,2, 3,,20 11 Cal. Pen. Code U.S.C. 83 OTHER AUTHORITY See About the Violence Policy Center, (last visited Oct., 20) Ninth Cir. Adv. Comm. Notes to Circuit Rules (Rev. 1/1/00) 5 1 David Kopel, State Court Standards ofreview for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, 50 Santa Clara L. Rev. 11,- Eruique Rangel, Majority ofgun Licensees White Males, Law Abiding, Lubbock Avalanche J., Aug.,200, 20 Terry Flynn, Gun-Toting Kentuckians Hold Their Fire, Cincinatti Enquirer, June,, Scrutinizing the Second Amendment, 5 Mich. L. Rev. 683, 686, -1 (200) 23 Thorn Goolsby, Concealed Weapons Advocates Were Right: Crime Didn't Go Up, Chapel Hill Herald, May 6,, at 4 Tad Dickens & Ray Reed, Pistol-Packing and Proud ofit, Roanoke Times, May,2002, Al 26 Eugene Volokh, The Second Amendment and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms After D. C. v. Heller: Implementing the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for SelfDeftnse: An Analytical Framework and a Research Agenda, 56 UCLA L. Rev. 43 (200) Vll 0-CV-1 TFG (Rn~\

9 Case 3:0-cv-0231-IEG -BGS Document 46 Filed // Page of 2 2 I. 3 ARGUMENT PLAINTIFFS SEEK TO HAVE THIS COURT CONSTRUE PENAL CODE 050 IN A CONSTITUTIONAL MANNER, NOT TO HAVE IT OVERTURNED 5 and to advocate "the theory that Heller provides that everyone has a constitutional right to carry a 6 concealed weapon in public." (Defs.' Mem. Opp. to Mot. Partial Summ. J. 8:-26). The County builds its case on this flawed foundation, suggesting Plaintiffs should challenge Cal. Pen. Code 0(a) 8 and 031 (a) instead of, or concurrently with, challenging the County's policy ofrequiring proofof a special need for issuance of a license issued pursuant to Cal. Pen. Code 050 et seq. (a "CCW"). But Plaintiffs are only challenging the County's policy in implementing section 050's "good 11 cause" requirement. This approach is consistent with the doctrine ofconstitutional avoidance,! under which the Court should uphold section 050's licensing scheme, as well as sections 0 and 031 (to the extent these need to be considered at all), by construing the existing state statutes in a constitutional manner. This means holding section 050's "good cause" criterion to be satisfied where CCW applicants ofgood moral character assert "self-defense as their basis." This is the approach taken in Schubert v. DeBard, 38 N.E.2d 3, 41 (Ind. Ct. App.80), 1 which construed the "proper reason" requirement (virtually identical to "good cause") in Indiana's provision for licensing concealed handguns consistent with the right to bear arms as follows: [T]he superintendent decided the application on the basis that the statutory reference to 20 "a proper reason" vested in him the power and duty to subjectively evaluate an assignment of"self-defense" as a reason for desiring a license and the ability to grant or deny the license upon the basis ofwhether the applicant "needed" to defend himself. Such an approach contravenes the essential nature of the constitutional guarantee. It would supplant a right with a mere administrative privilege which might be withheld 23 simply on the basis that such matters as the use offirearms are better left to the organized military and police forces even where defense ofthe individual citizen is involved. 26 I The canon of constitutional avoidance provides "when the constitutionality ofa statute is assailed, if the statute be reasonably susceptible of two interpretations, by one ofwhich it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid, it is [the court's] plain duty to adopt that construction which will save the statute from constitutional infirmity." United States ex rei. Attorney Gen. v. Del. & Hudson Co., 2 U.S. 366,40 (0); -1-0-CY-1 TEn- (Rn~\