This was an interesting comment made on a different forum on this subject:WildBill wrote:Some more information from San Diego:County Supervisor Chairwoman Dianne Jacob said she agreed with Gore’s decision not to appeal the case.
“I believe the appeals court got this one right, and I have no problem with law-abiding citizens carrying concealed weapons in the name of self-defense,” she said in a statement.
The conspiracy theorist in me sees shrewd political maneuvering. If all the defendants comply with the ruling then appeal to the US Supreme Court will be moot so the issue won't be heard at the national level on this case. That would tend to make the likes of NY and NJ very happy.
On the other hand the Sheriffs in those counties are elected politicians. Generally speaking sheriff's don't hold aspirations of higher office so they really couldn't care less about making the democratic machines on the other side of the country happy.
This is going to be very interesting to watch for another reason. I think Hawaii has issued a grand total of one CCW under its highly restrictive "good cause" scheme. Even if the California cases stop at this level this ruling is already binding on Hawaii. It's just a matter of time before someone files suit there and wins declaratory judgement at the first step.
Without getting ahead of myself I think that the next step of this fight is going to involve reciprocity and/or issuance of licenses to non-residents. If a person has a Constitutional right to carry outside his or her home for self defense then why would that right stop at the state line when his business (whether that be occupational business or personal business) takes him outside his state of residence? We've already had federal judges tell Ohio that it must recognize same sex marriages performed by another state in certain circumstances despite doing so being against the public policy of this state.
Even if nothing happens on the national legislative stage regarding reciprocity I have this feeling that in the next 5-10 years we will see challenges to rules such as California's that have the effect of denying carry to non-residents. That is, no out of state licenses recognized and no non-resident licenses issued. How is that any difference than "Sorry gay couple. You can't get married here and we don't recognize your marriage license from Massachusetts?"
The wannabe constitutional scholar in me is intrigued at the prospects ahead.