Ninth Circuit strikes California’s "May Issue"

[tomneal]

This is odd

There are some indications that San Diego is not planning to appeal

http://gunnewsdaily.com/index.php?optio ... &Itemid=31

Assuming they don't appeal would that mean each county in California would have to be sued to change their rules?
or
Does it just affect San Diego?

[WildBill]

This is odd

There are some indications that San Diego is not planning to appeal

http://gunnewsdaily.com/index.php?optio ... &Itemid=31

Assuming they don't appeal would that mean each county in California would have to be sued to change their rules?
or
Does it just affect San Diego?

Good question. For those who don't know, California Concealed Weapons Permits are issued by the counties and not the state.
If view of this court ruling, it wouldn't surprise me to see some state legislation to change that.
The big issue that I see that there may be shall issue, but only after jumping through more hoops than a circus tiger.
For example, they could also limit the CWP to exclude people convicted of any crime.

I am hoping for the best for the good citizens of the Golden State.

[ELB]

Federal Circuit Court decisions bind all the federal courts in the Circuit's jurisdiction, which for the 9th is a huge area - CA, NV, WA, ID, MT, HA, AZ, OR. Therefore, at least as I understand it, any similar federal question (i.e. does this county CCW scheme which is similar to San Diego's violate the 2A) should be addressed the same way in any federal court.

Lawyers make money demonstrating to the court why their particular case does or does not fit within the elements of the law and prior binding court decisions, but I would think this would force most if not all Cali counties to either issue CCW or allow open carry. I'm betting CCW.

[WildBill]

Some more information from San Diego:

Gore wrote in a letter to the county Board of Supervisors that “there is no easy answer on which everyone will agree” when it comes to the issue of bearing arms, but the appellate court’s 2-1 decision did provide clear guidance on the issuing of CCWs in the state.

“Since becoming Sheriff, I have always maintained that it is the legislature’s responsibility to make the laws, and the judiciary’s responsibility to interpret them and their constitutionality,” Gore wrote. “Law enforcement’s role is to uphold and enforce the law.”

He notes that the court emphasized that nothing in the ruling should change long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or the carrying of guns in places such as schools or government buildings.

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.

Edward Peruta, the journalist behind the lawsuit, said he hopes more San Diegans “will be permitted to apply for and obtain the CCWs necessary to protect themselves, their families and others if the need presents itself.”

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/feb ... ng-appeal/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Jumping Frog]

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.

This was an interesting comment made on a different forum on this subject:

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.

[WildBill]

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.

This was an interesting comment made on a different forum on this subject:

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.

Thanks for the post Jumping Frog.

A few years back a Sherriff in a rural California County decided to issue CWPs on a shall-issue basis. As I recall, it didn't last. He got all kind of flack and stopped. There were DAs from, San Francisco and Los Angeles that stated that they wouldn't honor the permits and would have people arrested if they carried in their jurisdiction. It's going to be a real battle.

[A-R]

California AG, without standing in case, files petition to reverse Peruta decision.

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/ ... n-gun-car/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[A-R]

Same court again rules a California "may issue" statute unConstitutional, this time unanimous 3-0 decision in a separate case.

http://us2.campaign-archive1.com/?u=812 ... 13008abab4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[texanjoker]

California AG, without standing in case, files petition to reverse Peruta decision.

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/ ... n-gun-car/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I would bet that they asked the AG to file this vs Gore looking anti gun..

[RoyGBiv]

Same court again rules a California "may issue" statute unConstitutional, this time unanimous 3-0 decision in a separate case.

http://us2.campaign-archive1.com/?u=812 ... 13008abab4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

More Awesome Sauce!

[ELB]

Via Arms and the Law, the 9th Circuit Court put up a web page devoted to Peruta:

Edward Peruta V. County of San Diego
10-56971

Due to the level of interest in this case, this site has been created to notify the
media and public of procedures and rules for admission to proceedings,
as well as access to case information.

Please check this website regularly for updates.

[RoyGBiv]

I'll post this here because it's directly related to SCOTUS and "May Issue", although Drake is a 3rd Circuit (NJ) case.

Drake v. Jerejian is being considered for certiorari today.

Is This the Supreme Court's Next Big Gun Case?

Today the justices are meeting in private conference to consider the latest batch of petitions seeking review. Among that batch is a Second Amendment case that is eminently worthy of the Court’s attention. In fact, it presents the next logical step in the development of a coherent Second Amendment jurisprudence. If the Supreme Court was truly serious in Heller and McDonald about securing the right to keep and bear arms against overreaching government action, this case offers the chance to prove it.

The case is Drake v. Jerejian, a challenge to New Jersey’s Handgun Permit Law. According to the state, anyone wishing to carry a handgun in public for self-defense purposes must first demonstrate a “justifiable need," which the law defines as showing evidence of "specific threats or previous attacks which demonstrate a special danger to the applicant's life that cannot be avoided by means other than by issuance of a permit to carry a handgun."

[Dave2]

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.

This was an interesting comment made on a different forum on this subject:

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.

Thanks for the post Jumping Frog.

A few years back a Sherriff in a rural California County decided to issue CWPs on a shall-issue basis. As I recall, it didn't last. He got all kind of flack and stopped. There were DAs from, San Francisco and Los Angeles that stated that they wouldn't honor the permits and would have people arrested if they carried in their jurisdiction. It's going to be a real battle.

I believe CA law says that CA CWPs are good state-wide. So it seems like you'd win the lawsuit...