BREAKING: CA Ninth Circuit Strikes Down “Good Cause” Carry Provision

CA 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (courtesy open.salon.com)

“The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Peruta v. San Diego, released minutes ago, affirms the right of law-abiding citizens to carry handguns for lawful protection in public,” washingtonpost.com reports. “The Ninth Circuit, in a 2-1 opinion written by Judge O’Scannlain, ruled that Peruta was entitled to Summary Judgement, because the ‘good cause’ provision violates the Second Amendment. The Court ruled that the legislature may regulate what mode of carrying to allow (open or concealed), but the legislature may not make it impossible for the vast majority of Californians to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms.” Here’s the money shot . . .

[I]f self-defense outside the home is part of the core right to “bear arms” and the California regulatory scheme prohibits the exercise of that right, no amount of interest-balancing under a heightened form of means-ends scrutiny can justify San Diego’s policy . . .

A law effecting a “destruction of the right” rather than merely burdening it is, after all, an infringement under any light….

Is this the beginning of the end of the Golden State’s civilian disarmament campaign? Hardly. The ruling will probably be re-examined by the 9th Circuit en banc (a bench consisting of a dozen or more of the judges in that court). They may toss the decision.

Or they may not. Either way, this may be the beginning of the beginning of the end of California’s jihad against residents’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. Residents of New Jersey, Hawaii and other “may issues” states await further developments with bated breath. [h/t JLR]

comments

  1. avatar justAMan says:

    Fingers crossed this leads to amazing things!

    1. avatar dlj95118 says:

      …I’m including my toes too!

    2. avatar Mecha75 says:

      Already has. Wyoming’s AG is leading a group of 19 state AGs in going after last year’s NJ ruling that went the other way. They want the SCOTUS to to finally issue a ruling.

    3. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

      RF, I was speed reading the decision. This will help the NJ case as well I am sure.
      1. This was the 9th circuit court of appeals, not a lower district court. This is as high as you go before appealing to SCOTUS.

      2. Bottom line on the majority decision. This is a paraphrase of me speed reading through 127 pages. Because you do not have open carry without a license, may issue for concealed carry is unconstitutional.

      3. (The Ninth Circuit has a different process for en banc than the rest of the circuits.) En banc opinions tend to carry more weight and are usually decided only after a panel has first heard the case. Once a panel has ruled on an issue and “published” the opinion, no future panel can overrule the previous decision. The panel can, however, suggest that the circuit take up the case en banc to reconsider the first panel’s decision.

      4. While they could force an En Banc review, or appeal to SCOTUS, unless there is a stay in implementation, I have a feeling all Sheriffs will need to start being shall issue. The discussion while focused on San Diego County actually references California as whole as well.

      1. avatar Mister Fleas says:

        Thanks for the analysis Daniel.

        That’s great news!

      2. avatar Brooklyn in da house says:

        Do you have any idea of a timeline of this going forward?

        1. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

          This is dependent on AG Harris.
          Uncontested, the rule can be implemented with out further legislation. It is simply a directive to all counties in CA that self protection is valid as the only reason for a CCW. Furthermore unless the person in question is prohibited than a CCW shall be issued.
          There are two approaches. First and foremost, AG Harris needs to file for a stay while the decision is appealed. Regardless of whether or not a stay is granted the AG can ask for one of the two.
          1. En Banc. If AG Harris wants to remain relevant in the future, my guess would be she would not take this route. Getting smacked down from the 9th circuit court of appeals with a majority decision like an En Banc is like taking her over your knee with a paddle.
          2. Appeal to SCOTUS. My guess is, that this in fact would be the preferred method. The New Jersey case went the other way, so now we have to opposing views. Before SCOTUS, this would set the standard for all states, if the cases were combined. This could be good and bad. It depends on if you love Bloomberg or not.
          If SCOTUS were to uphold the 9th circuit ruling basically all the states like NY, NJ, and others would now be in a pickle. This would would piss off a lot of blue states with civilian disarmament in full swing. If it goes the other way, then of course we would be in an up roar as well. It is really a hedging of bets here.

        2. avatar Cuteqndfuzzybunnies says:

          Well first off this is a good thing. And it goes to show why we should be on offense not just defense. If this goes to SCOTUS we really lose no states. A bunch of blue states stay the same, but laws can overturned via referendum or legislation. If they lose , they are however fu@ked like chuck. It will be the beginning of the end for the anti’s as there will be no way to really change the court decision.

          If ca,ny,nj all went shall issue the number of gun owners and people who carry will explode. Gun owners and ccw holders do not vote gun control. The anti movement may decide to not risk it this time.

      3. avatar Brooklyn in da house says:

        Thanks.

        1. avatar Aaron Bailey says:

          People seem to be continually confused on this point, so lemme be clear:

          ONLY A PARTY TO A LAWSUIT CAN APPEAL, REQUEST A STAY, OR PETITION FOR REHEARING OR REHEARING EN BANC.

          The only named defendants in Peruta are the County of San Diego and Sheriff Gore.

          Neither of those parties are Kamala Harris or CA DOJ. Kamala Harris can’t request anything, because SHE’S NOT A PARTY TO THIS LAWSUIT.

          Alright, get it yet? Can we stop talking about imaginary appeals and stays that a nonparty is going to magically summon?

    4. avatar Vhyrus says:

      Assuming this actually sticks, my big hope is that shall issue Cali will eventually lead to reciprocity with other states, notably AZ. This would allow LOTS of people (including myself) to legally pack in Cali, which would make me considerably more inclined to vacation/visit/spend money in their lovely liberal state.

      1. avatar Barry says:

        Maybe it would keep a lot of CA residents in their state and not come here to AZ and try and change our laws!

  2. avatar stormchaser says:

    Most excellent news from Cali!!

    I prey that this is only the beginning of the restoration of rights for our brothers behind enemy lines.

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      You pray it, not prey it. Gosh, homonyms are SO tricky, right?

      1. avatar Rad Man says:

        What, are you a homophobe? Is that it?

        1. avatar ThomasR says:

          That was funny!

      2. avatar Kirk says:

        Well…you never know. Maybe he intended “prey.”

        It’s a grey area.

        1. avatar mrvco says:

          A red flag just went up at his local DHS Fusion Center.

    2. avatar Defens says:

      The chair is against the wall. John has a long mustache.

      1. avatar Adub says:

        Wolverines!

        1. avatar jwm says:

          Wrong war. And maybe unneeded after this ruling.

    3. avatar IdahoPete says:

      “The district court erred in denying the applicant’s motion for summary
      judgment on the Second Amendment claim because San Diego County’s
      “good cause” permitting requirement impermissibly infringes on the Second
      Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense.
      REVERSED and REMANDED.”

      NEWS FLASH!!! 9TH CIRCUIT SEES INDIVIDUAL RIGHT IN 2ND AMENDMENT!!
      HELL FREEZES OVER!!

  3. avatar LongBeach says:

    HELL yeah! I’m still a ways away from getting a permit i’m sure, but not as far as before. This is good news. Hopefully the handgun roster garbage is challenged and tossed out soon as well.

    1. avatar justAMan says:

      Once concealed carry and handgun roster is gone, I would seriously look at returning to California. I guess also getting rid of the bullet button crap for ARs and 10 round mag limits. As it stands, the only three guns in my collection I would be able to bring back with me to California would be my three shotguns…

      1. avatar JoshuaS says:

        Do all of your handguns have threaded barrels?

        Any handgun may be brought into California by a new resident, regardless of the roster. Just no threaded barrels or 10+ mags.

        1. avatar justAMan says:

          Wow! Are you sure? I did not know that. Only have a few of mine have threaded barrels.

        2. avatar JoshuaS says:

          Absolutely certain. The Roster only applies to dealer sales. We can buy, sell and “import” (i.e. move to the state with) off roster guns, but only private party sales.

          However starting in 1998, if you move here you must register your handguns within 60 days, though you are clear of the law (as well) if you register after 60 days. This, despite the existence of many legal unregistered handguns (any sold private party before 1991, brought into the state by a new resident before 1998, not to mention the countless who did not registered when moving here because, who knows such minutiae…3 years statute of limitations btw)

          But yeah, bring you Glock Gen 4’s, you non-CA compliant LCP’s, etc. You can have them and sell them here, just not buy them from a dealer.

          Threaded barrels are different and treated as “assault weapons” Stupid, I know.

      2. avatar S.CROCK says:

        don’t be to hasty now, ca has a lot of work to do before a free state resident should consider moving to ca. this new ruling does make me very proud… well i guess just not as ashamed to be from ca.

        1. avatar LongBeach says:

          You’re right, there is still a huge amount of work to do in order to bring our 2A rights back to where they should be. However, this is a great step in the right direction, and an unexpected one given our current (horrible) political orientation. It gives me a huge morale boost, something I (and all CA gun owners) desperately needed.

      3. avatar Barry says:

        Why would anyone want to go back to the “State of Insanity”?

  4. avatar Luis says:

    This coming out of the most liberal circuit court is shocking.

    1. avatar Troutbum5 says:

      My thought exactly. Wow.

    2. avatar traye says:

      My brain kept going a weird reset, 9th? 9th?? 9th???

      Eyes-yes 9th.
      Brain-no
      Eyes-yes 9th
      Brain-you keep reading that but you have to be wrong, go read it again.

      So seriously the lefts pet court just kicked them in the nuts.

      1. avatar BDub says:

        I had the exact same experience!

      2. avatar CA_Chris says:

        They’re probably hoping for a Dem majority in Fed and state governments in the next decade, in order to push through a Constitutional Amendment.

        1. avatar Hoystory says:

          Constitutional amendment requires a supermajority — one they couldn’t possibly manage to get.

        2. avatar Jon Johnson says:

          That’s why they want Amnesty. So they will get the votes!

      3. avatar Mike Rubner says:

        Haha, classic post. Well done!

      4. avatar mrvco says:

        I’ll bet the calculation was that it was better for them to make this ruling then get overturned by the SCOTUS.

    3. avatar Mecha75 says:

      This was only a subsection of the full 11 judge panel that issues this ruling. 2 conservatives was for it, the one liberal obviously against it. San Diego’s attorney is appealing to the full (and more liberal) panel of appellate judges.

  5. avatar Jeff says:

    errr mahh gerrrrd WILD WEST

    1. avatar Gyufygy says:

      FER THE CHERLDERN~

  6. avatar DrVino says:

    “Why do you need a gun?”

    “Why do you need to keep me from carrying one”?

    1. avatar styrgwillidar says:

      Why do I want to legally be able to choose to carry a gun? ( need is a matter of individual risk assessment)

      It is not the state’s responsibility to protect any individual. It is the individual’s responsibility. Please see:

      Warren vs DC
      Linda Riss vs City of New York
      Castle Rock vs Gonzalez
      Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department

      And California’s Government Code, Sections 821, 845, and 846 which state, in part: “Neither a public entity or a public employee [may be sued] for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes and failure to apprehend criminals.

      So CA itself has codified into law/regulation what has been established by precedent- the government of CA from state down to local city is not responsible for protecting me from a criminal act. So, quite logically if it is my responsibility I would like to have access to the effective means to defend myself and my loved ones.

      1. avatar Frankie Spade says:

        Well Said!!!

    2. avatar NJ2AZ says:

      when i lived in NJ (Cranford, to be precise) i went to the PD to get the paperwork for a FOID or whatever the heck they call it and the 1st words out of the cops mouth were “What do YOU need a gun for?”

      i never even bothered filling the stuff out.

      1. avatar Parnell says:

        I guess that to a certain extent, the times they are a changin’ in NJ. When I went into the Neptune Twp. PD to get my FID card and first set of Pistol Purchase Permits the cops wanted to know what I was buying and discussed their ideas of the best choices in different calibers. I was there for close to an hour shooting the breeze with them.

        1. avatar NJ2AZ says:

          Do the neptune police have real police concerns? Cranford pd is all guys making 6 figures to enforce traffic laws and not much else

    3. avatar William Burke says:

      Excellent!

  7. avatar PeterK says:

    Yay! I have hopeful feelings, haha. Hope this goes somewhere for the sake of all our CA brethren.

  8. avatar Accur81 says:

    OutFLAMEDELETEDstanding!

    Now, to get the wife a CCW, and to drag the Mrs to the range.

    1. avatar Bryan says:

      Hope they are one in the same. Do you live in Utah?

      1. avatar Maineuh says:

        Heh! That’s how it sounded to me, as well.

      2. avatar Accur81 says:

        Ah, I should specify, they are one in the same. There are some guys here who sincerely their girlfriends never meet their wives, but that isn’t me.

        1. avatar Bryan says:

          Yea that’s a recipe for disaster. Now if I could only tap into the secrets of a man whose girlfriend IS his wife!

        2. avatar Vhyrus says:

          I hope my wife and girlfriend meet up and get along VERY well.

          Oh crap, did I just say that out loud?

      3. avatar William Burke says:

        😀

  9. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    I am going to go outside and wait for the End of Days., . . . . this cannot be. What about the children?

    1. avatar DrVino says:

      Mine will be safer.

    2. avatar JagTrek says:

      Surely this is a sign proclaiming the coming of Judgement Day!!! Repent!!!!
      Repent!!!! * run off into the distance, screaming like a mad man*

      1. avatar S.dogood says:

        ok john the baptist 😉

        1. avatar William Burke says:

          If you’re referring to the Book of Revelation, I’m reasonable sure you meant John of Patmos, not John the Baptist.

          And I don’t even own a Bible. ;D

        2. avatar S.dogood says:

          to clarify john the baptist went running around yelling repent

    3. avatar Josh in TX says:

      You get them a .22 cricket……geez

    4. avatar ropingdown says:

      This decision by the 9th appears to me like recognition that as CA public pension costs become ever more unbearable for taxpayers the number of CA LEO’s per capita will necessarily decline. At some point the lawless need to feel constrained by ordinary citizens, not merely those with a badge.

      That the opinion complies with SCOTUS holdings and dicta helps, of course. It may have held equal weight in reaching their decision.

      1. avatar ropingdown says:

        Here’s the money quote from the opinion: “The question is not whether the California scheme (in light of San Diego County’s policy) allows some people to bear arms outside the home in some places at some times; instead, the question is whether it allows the typical responsible, law-abiding citizen to bear arms in public for the lawful purpose of self-defense. The answer to the latter question is a resounding ‘no.’ ”

        Concise. It even refers to “law-abiding citizens” wanting to carry, and that they indeed can have “lawful purposes.”

    5. avatar Steve says:

      …not to worry, Dirk Diggler! …WE’LL protect them while you’re outside, busily ‘wringing your hands’ and dumping ‘ashes in your hair’! …we got this, you can run along now…

    6. avatar Ardent says:

      Well, I did see a cat lay down with a dog and I was pretty sure that the last rain we had was frogs and not water . . .this even explains why the river looked suspiciously like blood and that guy I thought I saw riding a pale horse . . .it’s all starting to make sense; the 9th circuit court actually did what it’s suppose to do and found an unconstitutional law to be unconstitutional, and with guns!

      If it holds I guess this means either California gets statewide open carry with preemption or it becomes a shall issue CCW state. I feel like laughing maniacally!

      I have to go build an ark now, I’m told that a huge flood of liberal tears is coming this way from the west and I don’t have much time.

  10. avatar CJ DEFILIPPO says:

    Come on NJ!

    1. avatar ropingdown says:

      The 9th gets religion and now you are expecting miracles?

  11. avatar DFF says:

    Just as I thought my state was quickly circling the inside of the toilet bowl, it just might be slowing down a bit. Just a bit.

    1. avatar BDub says:

      If it is, it probably because of all the shit clogging the drain, hehe. Seriously though, I am going to drink one for Cali tonight. Cheers!

      1. avatar Dennis says:

        Really, should one talk about clogging the drain and drinking in the same breath?

    2. avatar styrgwillidar says:

      No, no. The state is still trapped in its vortex of despair. Expect the State AG, Harris, to appeal, although she refused to defend Proposition 8 as her job required, she will vigorously defend infringements on 2a. Expect the legislature to react with extensive legal/regulatory obstacles and hurdles in implementing ‘shall issue’ if the state loses.

      Note, there are counties in CA where the sheriff’s philosophy is ‘shall issue’. As opposed to San Diego and LA which are effectively no issue unless you demonstrate good judgement through large contributions to the sheriff’s reelection fund.

      1. avatar CA_Chris says:

        First, the AG is not required to defend all laws by appealing court decisions. Second, it was now-Governor (again) Brown who refused to defend Prop 8, and third I should point out that Brown as governor has actually made some unexpected moves against gun control by vetoing several bad bills.

        1. avatar styrgwillidar says:

          Yes it is the job of the AG to defend the laws of the state of CA when they are challenged. They may not like them, they may not agree with them, they may not even believe they are constitutional, but they are required as a part of their duties to defend the laws of the state whether passed by the legislature or the people. Note, the SCOTUS decision simply stated the folks who were challenging the judge’s decision to strike down the law had no standing to do so. Only the state of CA had standing to defend their own laws- and that’s the AG’s job.

          In fact, there were many editorials and articles pointing out how unique this was when it happened. How bad a precedent it was setting. The implications of AGs personal bias/opinions negating laws through refusal to perform their duty/function in our legal system of judicial review of legislation.

          Second, Brown was the AG initially when the law was passed and he refused to defend it in initial court appeals. Harris was AG as it made its way to SCOTUS.

          Yes, Brown actually has refused to sign some of the gun control nonsense, but he has signed some of it as well.

  12. avatar Kent Unterseher says:

    Outstanding! The Obama administration has to be confounded. Almost everywhere they turn, they are defeated. Hmmmm, what’s that thing again? Oh yeah, THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE! You are not a King, you work for us. (Thank God for not much longer)

  13. avatar DB says:

    Great news but I remain nervous as the 9th is the most overturned circuit at the SCOTUS. Fat Lady not singing…

    1. avatar JeffR says:

      But this time they have the 7th Circuit standing behind them.

    2. avatar Toasty says:

      Yes DB, but remember the broken clock theory… Statistically they were due to be right on SOMETHING.

    3. avatar ropingdown says:

      You don’t need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

      They are, after all, federal judges. They do have to home in on an eventual core definition of the right, calibrated by SCOTUS, following rather than leading but at least paying attention.

  14. avatar peirsonb says:

    Anyone else’s feet getting cold?

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Mine are freezing, buddy. I’m walking in sunshine and don’t it feel good!

      1. avatar Rick says:

        Ralph,

        Walkin’ _on_ sunshine.

  15. avatar KA-BAR-A-RANG says:

    Now fix the low the capacity magazines, bullet buttons, and micro stamping! and then we’ve made progress

    1. avatar Samuel Leoon Suggs says:

      No this is progress that’s home plate

    2. avatar Cuteqndfuzzybunnies says:

      Get shall issue and the people will change and all the other silly laws
      Will go away. Look at tx or fl

  16. avatar Korvis says:

    Not to spoil the punch, but that was just a three-judge panel decision, right? Don’t start uncorking the champagne until the full circuit weighs in (or doesn’t weigh in).

    1. avatar SpecialK says:

      I was thinking the same thing. The 9th will hear this en banc, sure as you’re born.

    2. avatar JR says:

      It’s still pretty amazing. As was stated elsewhere today…even the longest trip begins with one step.

      I find it fascinating that the 9th is even looking at 2A as being meaningful and relevant in the 21st century.

      This is big. It’s not full blown ‘victory,’ but it is a win.

  17. avatar julian says:

    Db SCOTUS won’t overturn this. No chance.

  18. avatar jwm says:

    I actually felt a surge of hope when Illinois got slapped down in court. As churchill said. “This is the end of the beginning.” We still have a long road ahead. Time to go write a couple of checks.

  19. avatar Dave357 says:

    Do we know yet if the State of CA plans to appeal?

    1. avatar peirsonb says:

      Does a bear sh1t in the woods?

      1. avatar Dave357 says:

        I was being tongue in cheek. That’s how it went in MD – a ruling against “may issue” got overturned on appeal. But hey, I feel like dreaming for a minute or two anyway.

      2. avatar Bryan says:

        Actually, is a frog’s ass watertight?

        1. avatar Jeff says:

          I don’t know!!! Why are you doing this to me?

      3. avatar jwm says:

        A bear sh1ts wherever he wants to. Try telling him otherwise.

      4. avatar Samuel Leoon Suggs says:

        That’s just be that armless bear I’m allways hearing about.

      5. avatar Steve says:

        Polar Bears don’t …they shit on ice!

    2. avatar Tammy says:

      I’m sure they do, but based on my reading so far (I’m only about a third of the way through the opinion) I’m not spotting anything SCOTUS is likely to want to overturn. The 9th Circuit tracked pretty closely to the language of Heller and McDonald, and cited the heck out of their opinion, so I don’t see a reversal by SCOTUS being likely based on what I’ve read so far. (Honestly, I wouldn’t even be surprised if they denied the petition for certiorari).

      Disclaimer: I am trained as a paralegal but am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on television, nor have I ever stayed in a Holiday Inn Express.

      1. avatar Dave357 says:

        From what others have said, this decision is not from the full circuit, so presumably SCOTUS is not where this will be appealed first?

        1. avatar Tammy says:

          The losing side (in this case, the County of San Diego) could petition the 9th Circuit for en banc review. In this case, they’d need to get a majority of the sitting judges in the circuit to agree to grant review. Given how closely the panel decision tracks recent SCOTUS jurisprudence, I can’t say what the odds of that happening are. The losers could also skip en banc review and file a cert petition directly with the Supreme Court, I think.

      2. I just finished reading the entire thing. Also not a lawyer (or paralegal or anything) but this opinion is totally full of win in my book and closely tracks Heller. Also it lambastes the 2nd, 3rd and 4th for their recent opinions to the contrary for the very same reasons that I thought those circuits ‘mad’.

      3. avatar Jus Bill says:

        Folks, don’t forget there is what I call “the DC Option.” Even in light of the Heller decision, it is still impossible to legally possess, even inside your own home, unless you have a means of teleportation from a nonexistent FFL in DC. In short, the DC City Government is quite pointedly ignoring SCOTUS.

        [Fingers in ears] La, la, la, I can’t hear you. Par for the course for Congress’ Little Plantation on the Potomac.

        1. You may purchase a handgun from an FFL dealer outside of D.C. and have it shipped to a police station in D.C. (not any police station, there is one designated) for you to pick it up and do all the gestopo registration with it. Of course, with the strike-down of the ban on gun stores in Chicago perhaps somebody else will challenge the D.C. gun store ban as well. It may all become academic if/when Heller II makes it back to SCOTUS anyway.

  20. avatar Excedrine says:

    Ah. Save the celebratory shots for later, ladies and germs. Let’s wait until we get the final court decision… and the inevitable repeal of that decision (should it actually go in favor of the PoTG of CA).

    Watch this space.

    1. avatar Noah says:

      The decision was REVERSED and REMANDED. That means it is a done deal.

      The only other way up/down is en banc before the full 9th (all judges must agree to even hear the case). SCOTUS, as of now, will not take up any [concealed] carry cases. San Diego would be committing legal/political/economical suicide if they file for en banc.

      This is effectively how Illinois was granted CCW.

      1. avatar Tammy says:

        Two minor nits: It only requires a majority of the active judges in the 9th Circuit to vote for en banc rehearing, although the 9th’s rules of procedure say that “An en banc hearing or rehearing is not favored and ordinarily will not be ordered unless…en banc consideration is necessary to secure or maintain uniformity of the court’s decisions; or…the proceeding involves a question of exceptional importance.” Also, SD County *could* petition directly to the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, though (I’m pretty sure) they give up the right to later ask for en banc review if they do. The losing party may petition for en banc review prior to appealing, but is not required to do so.

        1. avatar CA_Chris says:

          Interestingly, the city of San Diego just elected the only Republican mayor of a major CA city.

  21. avatar Toasty says:

    Holy shit… A shall issue California. As an NJ resident, i believe i’ll actually not know what to do when i can freely CCW in my state… I honestly know i will feel like a criminal for a while in the beginning. Thank god this happened though… Watching the Cali legislature craft this bill will be very interesting, get ready for “revenge legislation”…

  22. avatar Bryan says:

    Time to break out my ski’s. I think hell just froze over!

  23. avatar ErrantVenture11 says:

    So for those keeping score, where do we stand in recent court decisions regarding “Good cause” permitting? I recall dueling rulings out of MD (against, then for) and now a ruling against in CA. Any that I’ve missed?

    1. avatar JeffR says:

      3 Circuits upholding may issue
      1 Circuit rejecting may issue
      1 Circuit rejecting no issue and strongly suggesting to the State of Illinois to not darken its doorstep with a may issue law

      1. avatar Dave357 says:

        May I ask which Circuit rejected may issue? I wasn’t aware of that one.

        1. avatar ErrantVenture11 says:

          Umm…the 9th. Today.

        2. avatar Dave357 says:

          It wasn’t the full 9th circuit though.

        3. avatar JoshuaS says:

          There is no “full circuit” in the 9th. Or at least they have never granted such a review. En banc here means 11 (less than half of the judges) randomly selected out of the 26. And they are even more relunctant to do that than most courts.

        4. avatar Dave357 says:

          For a clueless layman like me, it’s “full enough” when they have a place to appeal the 3-judge panel’s decision before going to SCOTUS. But I do see your point.

      2. avatar ErrantVenture11 says:

        Hmm…so the MD ruling that rejected may issue was a district court decision.

        1. avatar Armchair Command'oh says:

          Correct. The 4th Circuit subsequently overturned that favorable District Court decision.

        2. avatar Jus Bill says:

          And the Formerly Free State continues to hang her head in shame.

  24. avatar Jim Jones says:

    Aaaaaaaah snap!

  25. avatar Pedro Of NYC says:

    I can feel QuHomo (Andy Coumo) getting a nervous chill down his spine… The SAFE is will be REPEALED!!!
    KEEP HOPE ALIVE!!!!

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      Maybe in a few years…

  26. avatar Robert Smith says:

    Since this is a 9th Circuit decision, would it not apply to Hawaii also?

    1. avatar BTinAfghan says:

      you would be correct as well as the pacific US terrotories.

  27. avatar Alex Bosco says:

    RF: this ruling, with a dissent, on a controversial issue, will probably end up before the 9th Citcuit en banc, which means this ruling will be reexamined by a bench (‘banc’) consisting of a dozen or more of the judges in that court. 9th Circuit is unmanly pinko country, so don’t hold your breath.

    1. avatar Robert Farago says:

      Gotcha. Adding it to the text.

    2. avatar jwm says:

      If the 9th rules against it, doesn’t it go to scotus?

      1. avatar Tammy says:

        No matter what ruling the en banc court makes, and even if it goes there (a majority of the judges in the 9th have to agree to en banc rehearing), the “losing” party could appeal to the Supreme Court. Whether SCOTUS will grant the writ of certiorari is, of course, anybody’s guess, but since the decision hews very closely to, and cites repeatedly, the language of Heller and McDonald, I don’t know the chances of that happening.

        1. avatar NJ2AZ says:

          I don’t really know anything about the law, but i read in another article that this decision jives with the 7th circuit, and disagrees with decision from the 2nd, 4th, and 5th. Isn’t that something that could lead to SCOTUS getting involved, just to settle the matter?

      2. avatar styrgwillidar says:

        Not necessarily. Even if the losing side appeals, SCOTUS may simply decline to hear an appeal. Since circuits have disagreed on the issue it is more likely they would hear one of the cases- but not a sure thing.

        1. avatar Tammy says:

          NJ2AZ is correct that several of the intermediate appellate courts have disagreed on this issue, and the majority in this case takes several pages to explain why they feel those contrary decisions are in error. So yes, the Supreme Court could decide to accept this appeal as a means of resolving the inconsistency, and they may choose to do so in this case. But they aren’t obligated to do so, though I suspect they’ll have to address the scope of the right to bear arms eventually.

    3. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

      Ralph is correct, it could go that far. This does go against the lower court in NJ. So now we have one for and one against.
      Whether or not it goes for an en banc remains to be seen. Even if it does, many cases are simply upheld. Overturning causes bad friction amongst judges.

  28. avatar Pascal says:

    Hardly. But it may be the beginning of the beginning of the end. Residents of New Jersey, Hawaii and other “may issues” states await further developments with bated breath

    Doesn’t the 9th District Court’s decision not also cover Hawaii?

    NJ is still screwed, but does this not now allow Hawaii gun owners to file suite as well?

    1. Hawaii is 9th Circuit … time to hula!

  29. avatar Michael B. says:

    Hey everybody, guess what?!

    I finally received that snowball I ordered from Hell years ago!

    1. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

      +10

  30. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

    WTF?? Well happy Thursday everyone!
    I am going to sit here in shock for a while.

    1. avatar S.CROCK says:

      I’m right there with you. i think i need to read the article again to make sure i didn’t miss something.

  31. avatar GSRpositive says:

    The entire state is not “good cause”. It is up to the sheriffs of the individual counties. Many counties, especially those in the rural areas, are “shall issue.” My concern is that the sheriffs that are forcing “good cause” would need to be made to comply, and I’m not sure what that will take.

    Any informed opinions on that?

    1. avatar styrgwillidar says:

      If this decision is upheld, that invalidates the requirement in the law for citizens to show good cause. The sheriff would be obligated to abide by the other conditions under the law.

      Now, the CA legislatures reaction will be interesting. Because they may change the law to layer a whole slew of administrative requirements and fees onto the process. Make it far more difficult even in the counties which have been more liberal in issuing permits, operating more in the lines of ‘shall issue’ in those counties.

      1. avatar GSRpositive says:

        It will be interesting indeed.

        Of course, the way things are going with the “roster of handguns”, even if you can get a permit, you might not be able to get a gun.

        “Onions have layers, trolls have layers.” And so do anti-gun regulations.

      2. avatar Tammy says:

        In its’ opinion, the court cited a previous decision which held that “the Legislature[ has] the right to enact laws in regard to the manner in which arms shall be borne,” but…that a statute that destroys the right altogether under the “pretence of regulating” the manner of carry “would be clearly unconstitutional”. So, it is certainly likely that the Legislature may try this, and it is equally likely that such laws would likewise be overturned on appeal.

        In a way, this is a good argument for hoping that the Supreme Court grants review of this decision and affirms it.

    2. The way we do it – and have done it – it to sue the bejeezzus out of Counties and Sheriffs who do not comply with the law. This is how Sacramento county became “shall issue”, and how a whole lot of other Sheriffs suddenly “got religion”. T

    3. Technically this doesn’t strike down the “good cause” requirement. It only strikes it down so far as self-defense for the typical law-abiding citizen MUST be considered ‘good enough cause’ or the law is unconstitutional.

  32. avatar Anon in CT says:

    I am a little bit troubled. I feel like we may be heading towards a judicial “concensus” on the 2A where is gets interpreted to protect one’s right to armed self-defense both in and out of the home (good so far), but only with such weapons as the courts and/or legislatures determine are appropriate for the purposes (not so good), like shotties and handguns holding 10 rounds or less.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      Baby steps. I agree with your reasoning. But I cannot carry a gun legally outside my home on my person and loaded.

      For the time being, shotguns and revolvers are way ahead of what I’m allowed now. We can always continue to chip away at the laws.

      1. avatar Anon in CT says:

        I am happy that Californians may start to see an improvement in this area, but if we get locked in to a “concensus” (handguns ok, EBRs evil, etc.), and it gets the blessing of the USSC, then those of us in unfree states will be totally stuck for the forseeable future – not chance of electing the necessary pro-freedom legislatures and governors, and settled law which the courts will be loathe to distrub. It will become a permanent one-way ratchet.

      2. avatar rlc2 says:

        Yes, step by step careful building blocks using good solid petitioners and circumstances to argue cases, that build on precedent, and wait on others as needed for more support.

        There have been mistakes made in past where less experienced attorneys rushed into action, less prepared, with weak cases, that led to very adverse outcomes- that lasted for years.

        Theres some old discussion on this, buried in Calguns forums, that get pretty bitter- and not worth re-hashing, except to point to what works, as this example shows.

        Much more to be done, and some have suggested- you don’t want to get too carried away in your enthusiasm, and underestimate the determination of the anti-gunners, to throw up barriers, or FUD, or legal actions in desperation, as delaying tactics… how that shapes up, I have no idea, not being a lawyer, or experienced in the long history of the law.

        But thanks again Ralph for your commentary- that gives a lot of insight here, from a highly credible source.

  33. avatar ST says:

    Damn. I knew the temps this winter have set record lows, but in hell too?

  34. avatar DougR says:

    Californica will come up with some other different bs to replace this with, or the judges will go missing and get replaced with more liberal judges.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      Or ignore it entirely. See my comment above.

  35. This my friends is why you cannot simply “abandon California and move”.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      Never entered my mind. But then I’m not a french surrender monkey.

      1. avatar SilentSecessionist says:

        AMEN!

        Yea, it’s not “comfortable” in CA for gun owners…..

        But hell, it wasn’t “comfortable” on Normandy either.

        You usually don’t fight for freedom from a “comfortable” position.

    2. avatar Accur81 says:

      I despise the most of the anti-gun CA legislature and plan on leaving CA in 3-7 years. However, I’ll fight for gun rights as well as I can for both CA and the rest of the nation. ‘Merica.

    1. avatar Noah says:

      This is the best part =)

      [T]he California scheme does not prevent every person from bearing arms outside the home in every circumstance. But the fact that a small group of people have the ability to exercise their right to bear arms does not end our inquiry. Because the Second Amendment “confer[s] an individual right to keep and bear arms,” we must assess whether the California scheme deprives any individual of
      his constitutional rights. Thus, the question is not whether the California scheme (in light of San Diego County’s policy) allows some people to bear arms outside the home in some places at some times; instead, the question is whether it allows the typical responsible, law-abiding citizen to bear arms in public for the lawful purpose of self-defense. The answer to the latter question is a resounding “no.”

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        Because the Second Amendment “confer[s] an individual right to keep and bear arms,”

        This kind of language always bothers me. Surely the court knows that the Constitution doesn’t confer any rights to citizens. The Second Amendment prohibits the government. The whole reason we have problems with the courts today is this idea that rights come from the government.

        1. avatar Jus Bill says:

          If SCOTUS and the USCs adopted that line of reasoning, they would be reduced to adjudicating Park Service speeding tickets.

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          I’m unsure of your meaning, Jus Bill.

        3. avatar Ardent says:

          John, I think that the court is referencing the concept that the BoR deals with rights retained by the citizens which could be stated as ‘conferring’ those rights on them as opposed to the government. I don’t think writing it that way indicates that the right didn’t exist before the constitution, rather that the right was always there and the constitution ‘confers’ it on the people.

          I definitely see your objection and partially agree with it but I’m not sure they didn’t mean it closer to my interpretation, in which case their language isn’t much of a problem.

        4. avatar John in Ohio says:

          I mostly agree with you about how the courts probably mean that choice of words, Ardent. However, the problem I see is when context changes over time. People reading that far down the road or even those who today don’t understand the nature of our rights might retain the notion that government gives rights which is something it hasn’t the power to do. We’ve seen that already with “regulated”, “militia”, and “infringed” to name a few. Along those same lines, government doesn’t really have rights. The People authorize government to act in limited and specific circumstances in the form of privileges. Because they are privileges, they can be revoked by the People at any time. Just as government hasn’t the power to grant rights, the People also lack that power. Either can only grant privileges. Basically, I become concerned because the nature of language is change over time. What something meant to the founders may not mean the same today. Likewise, court decisions today generally might not make as much sense later on without consistent context and usage.

    2. avatar rlc2 says:

      Thank you, I was scrolling down hoping someone added the Volokh commentary.

      I imagine CalGuns will be out with a PR and some more news and views on this- there’s also been good legal discussion in the forums- although YMMV, as its hard to sort out those who know what they are talking about, from those who think they do…and I would be neither of the above, btw…

  36. avatar Parnell says:

    The 9th? You mean the most over-ruled by SCOTUS circuit in the US? You know that hotbed of Progressive “thought” will toss this finding. However, I think the nine justices will really think hard before affirming the 9th. Given the 9th’s past performances on gun questions I sure their ruling will be so loony the SCOTUS will be unable to overlook it.

  37. avatar Hannibal says:

    I am surprised at this decision from CA mostly because of the implications…

    “No State shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefore.” Murdock v. PA (1943)

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      States with concealed carry licensing laws play close to that line. Ohio courts recognized that *if* open carry was restricted then the concealed carry licensing law would be unconstitutional. IMHO, licensing any type of carry is running afoul of Murdock v. PA regardless by converting a liberty into a privilege by licensing it and charging a fees.

      1. avatar Ardent says:

        I love your informed commentary every time I read it John. I realize it’s a populous place but I’m more proud of being an Ohioan knowing you’re here too.

        This is an interesting wrinkle you point out. I don’t know the history all that well but presume it was the unregulated legality of open carry in Ohio that made forbidding concealed carry ‘constitutional’ for all the years before the CCW permitting process in Ohio and from what you’re saying open carry remains the cornerstone of legality for regulating CCW?

        I for one find Ohio’s gun laws largely ‘acceptable’. I’d give us a B+. However I live and stay mostly within Lawrence County and down here the sheriff spits out permits with a bare minimum of scrutiny (the last sheriff not so much and that may have been a large part of why he’s out). Locally, whenever CCW comes up it seems to me that an actual majority of the people in the conversation turn out to have permits though it seems that few of them EDC.

        Local police seem very friendly to CCW and actually seem to have MORE respect for those who do than the baseline for those who don’t, it’s as if it were a badge of honor. In fact I’ve only had two reactions: Increased respect over the baseline (which is pretty respectful most of the time with most officers) or complete indifference ‘Oh, you have a gun too? And I care why? Get on with what you were telling me. . . ‘.

        I’ve heard things can be more problematic in the cities but can’t confirm it. Do you have input on what the city cops are like? My understanding is that it’s hit or miss, really good or nightmarish.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Thank you for the kind words, Ardent, and I am proud to have other Ohioans such as yourself representing. I, too, enjoy reading your comments; even on those rare occasions when we may not be completely of the same opinion.

          and from what you’re saying open carry remains the cornerstone of legality for regulating CCW?

          You’ve got it. Without OC, then CCW/CHL law in Ohio would run afoul of the Ohio Constitution. Concealed carry wasn’t wholesale illegal before our licensing law. Many people I’ve known, including myself and my elders, carried concealed. *If* one were charged with carrying concealed, they could use a “prudent man” defense in that they were engaged in lawful business and it was prudent to be armed. The reality was that until the mid-1990s, I didn’t hear of people being charged with carrying concealed unless it was subsequent to another criminal charge. However, IMHO, people in Ohio started to be charged much more often with carrying concealed. Perhaps the numbers ramped up over time or my assessment is incorrect. At least, I and those I knew of never had any issues with law enforcement over carrying concealed. IIRC, the case that broke into the issue (Klein, I think) was about a private investigator licensed through the Ohio Peace Officer certification program. He couldn’t carry concealed because he was engaged in commerce under a licensed privilege. The clear answer was to simply strike the little bit of law. Instead, the legislature created concealed carry licensing law; a privilege for all.

          I’d agree with your B+ rating for Ohio or maybe even an A-. BTW: Part of my family came from Ironton. 🙂 In my county, I’ve had similar experiences as you have. Our sheriff leaned libertarian.

          Do you have input on what the city cops are like? My understanding is that it’s hit or miss, really good or nightmarish.

          I’ve found it to indeed be hit or miss. Mostly, I believe it to be officers unfamiliar with the laws. However, I have encountered and engaged officers who were wilfully ignorant or full on knowingly ignore the laws. I had a situation on Fountain Square in Cincinnati. There are no guns signs but they are invalid under Ohio law. Cincinnati is fully aware of that fact. We were taking photos of ourselves standing by one of the signs while armed. All the while, we were talking with a specific officer who freely acknowledged that the sign was invalid and he thought the whole thing was comical. Later, that same officer came up to us on the square and tried to tell us that we had to disarm because a liberal had complained. Of course, we refused. A superior came over soon after and told him to leave us alone as we were a-okay and legal. That first officer clearly knew we did not have to disarm. Still, he tried to run the game on us.

          If you ever want to OC sometime in Ohio, perhaps I can get you contacts or even OC with you. If Matt and RF don’t mind, you can ask them for my email address. Otherwise, I can drop a link or two here to connect you with people.

      2. avatar Ron M says:

        I live in Alameda county, California, I am a strong advocate for gun right, I am a hand gun owner, and I have close friends in law enforcement here. Although I agree with the constitutionality of 9th Court’s opinion, I have valid concerns for how this decision could effect public safety, and law enforcement in this county’s urban centers. Obviously you gentlemen understand your rights and how to properly apply them in your environment, but you would have to agree, you know little about gun culture and public opinion in this environment. The cities of Oakland, and Hayward, here in Alameda county, are plagued with the miss-use of deadly force, not only in the commission crimes and gang activity, but in resolving common disputes between otherwise law abiding citizens. This state is seriously fatigued, and the growing anti gun sentiment is justified daily.

        To the letter of the law, this decision could provides an 18 year old with no prior arrests, the right to carry a handgun for “self protection”. Does this extend to public schools, at social events, and in a troubled home? I can tell you from first had experience, this will not make my family’s environment safer, and this is only one of many issues this decision will bring up.

        Blindly passing laws in our fight for 2nd Amendment rights is doing a massive disservice to the cause IMO. Without considering every aspect of it’s impact, the end result of such short sightedness could braw the death nail for responsible gun owner’s rights. Like it or not, this fight will be decided in the court of public opinion. Although it may seem like a victory now, in the end we may deeply regret this decision.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Infringement is an eventual death sentence to the sanctity of the right to keep and bear arms in the United States. The right of the People to keep and bear arms is necessary to the security of our free state. That is why is shall not be infringed by our government. Instead of hand wringing over the *possibility* that some immature eighteen year old *might* commit a crime with a firearm, open your eyes to the reality of a tyrannical government should infringement upon this right go unchallenged at any point. Servitude and suffering on a mass scale will eventually follow gun control. It’s not if… it’s when. The brilliantly simple solution to the problem of tyranny was indelibly written in our Constitution. Your solution to your own concerns throw the baby out with the bath water. In the hopes of preventing possible lessor tragedies, you propose that we embrace the certain greater disaster. Your reasoning defies logic.

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          To the letter of the law, this decision could provides an 18 year old with no prior arrests, the right to carry a handgun for “self protection”.

          It provides no such thing! That eighteen year old already possesses the unalienable right to keep and bear arms. The decision only repairs a defect in law whereby the Constitution was being violated. Are you not 100% in favor of the limits that the Constitution places upon our government? Are you for tyranny? Do you propose that individuals ought to be deprived of rights without due process? Your comment affirms exactly these things. To deprive that eighteen year old of the right to keep and bear arms means that our government must ignore the Constitution, deprive him of his right without due process, and we must all give up on the notion of living in a free state.

        3. avatar John in Ohio says:

          ** The editor wasn’t saving **

          “Are you not 100% in favor of the limits that the Constitution places upon our government?” should read, “Are you advocating that our government should violate the Constitution?”

  38. avatar jkp says:

    The 9th circuit covers the western states and territories, from Nevada to Guam. There are a number of places – Hawaii, Guam, some of the other Pacific territories – which have highly burdensome carry regs. Heck, Hawaii’s was much more restrictive than even California’s, and if handgunlaw.us is correct, both Samoa and the Northern Marianas have made it illegal for a citizen to carry firearms in almost any circumstance.

    So there are some gungrabbers in Hawaii that are having a panic attack too, right now….

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      Folks, Hawaii is a state. Samoa, Guam and the like are territories. YMMV. I don’t know how that works.

  39. avatar MB says:

    It is possible, to get a CCW here in CA if you are a law abiding civilian. Although I had to go through many “hoops” I got mine a year and a half ago and coming up for renewal/ The process took about 9 months! That sucks. And for renewal you have to apply with the same application as if I was a first timer! That also sucks. But Giving a Sheriff or Police Chief the final say and stamp of approval? That REALLY SUCKS. My “Just Cause” is to protect myself, wife and children from random acts of life threatening violence. CA. wants you to have a “specific” threat. I say BS!!! I’m lucky I don’t so much as have a J Walking violation or wouldn’t have been issued a CCW! But I think things are changing in favor of the 2A! We got complacent as a people and are waking up the Patriot inside of most Americans

    1. avatar GSRpositive says:

      Depends on where you live. In SD county you don’t have a chance unless you were a major contributor to the sheriff’s campaign fund. “Next door” in Riverside County, I understand it is relatively easy.

    2. avatar rlc2 says:

      GSR is correct- all 58 counties are not the same, and the policy is set by the Sheriff on how to interpret CA’s “may issue” – in conservative counties, its been common sense to grant CCWs. In urban counties, forget it.

      Check Calguns website for their CCW county by county effort- they sued Sacramento county and got that fixed, for example, and others have been slowly but surely falling, including this most recent- San Diego.

      Note that Sheriff William Gore is the retired FBI Special Agent in Charge at San Diego, before he retired, and ran for Sheriff. he Sheriff answers to the County, and I would guess, to some extent the City of San Diego, and to other smaller cities which sub out to the Sheriffs dept for local law enforcement. I honestly don’t know the politics well enough to comment, but you will find strong opinions on both sides from back during the election. From what I can tell, watching the feedback and reputed slow changes in the Sheriffs policy as far as the admin details changing to apply, and be approved for a CCW, the County was acting in a fair and responsive fashion, to common sense objections- but not reversing while the lawsuit was in play. It will be very interesting to see how those details change, now, and how soon, especially as one reader above notes, the Republican candidate to replace the sordid Bob Filner, won by quite a large margin, despite his Dem opponent having a near 2 to 1 advantage in union money and national Dem funding pouring in, to no avail. San Diego County has been traditionally more conservative, all in all, and I hope this is another sign of a slow sea change for common-sense 2A laws in CA. We’ll see…

  40. avatar Ed says:

    HOLY Sh1t Snacks!!!

  41. avatar Kerry says:

    I hope none of those flying pigs crap on my car.

    (packs a snowball and a parka for weekend visit to Hell)

  42. avatar ropingdown says:

    There is, after all, a Supreme Court, a Bill of Rights, an incorporation of the 2nd amendment via the 14th, and an obvious need to insure that rights are not overridden by the preferences of the moment among large urban voter pools, pools which have proven to have poor instincts on many rights issues in the past. We don’t need cities as fortresses, and the texture of the law, of respect for rights, should be the same from sea to sea. Civil rights faced the same challenges, requiring the Court to enforce a uniform understanding of civil rights even where many cities and entire state majorities disagreed. The very nature of rights requires that they not be deprecated by the short-sighted enthusiasms of a mass-psychology moment in a few cities.

  43. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

    A gimmer of hope is better than a sliver int the eye.

  44. avatar Wassim Absood says:

    W00T!

    Coming soon: banishment of the tragicomically misnamed ‘not unsafe handgun roster’…

    {knocks on wood}

  45. avatar Randy Drescher says:

    Is feinswine flying?

    1. avatar jwm says:

      Just as soon as we can find a cannon we can dispose of after we shoot her out of it. It’ll be too contaminated to salvage.

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        She’ll just use her broom anyway.

  46. avatar g says:

    Awesome. Congrats to our 2A brethren in Cali!

    Now quick, donate some money to the CalGuns Foundation.

    1. avatar rlc2 says:

      THIS.

      Remember, its been Calguns (and SAFs) steady support to this case, and Atty Alan Gura’s brilliant strategizing that put the liberal 9th in the position to issue this decision. They got boxed out by the law, both the dumb decision in first case by San Diego judge who cited open carry as reason CCW not needed, and the doofus CA Legislature who then passed legislation to ban Open Carry-
      That plus the solid precedent in Heller, etc, that the legal team patiently waited on, and others, to be built as a solid irrefuteable argument.

      CGF has many other well managed irons in the fire, working 2A rights in same format- careful step by step strategic wins, and if you to go to their website you will see some of them.

      Remember the old saying about “You know what walks, and what talks, …”

      And if you think it doesn’t matter in your State, then remember- that as California goes, so goes the Nation…this is just one key battle in a long war- and good lawyering and PR and lobbying at all sorts of levels, doesn’t come cheap.

      We need national orgs like NRA but we also need state efforts sprouting and nurtured all over, to be working same and similar angles, and when done without getting nto the OCD nitpicking and circular firing squads all to common in the caliber wars, leads to good results- like in IL, and CO, and now in SD…

      1. avatar Westward Ho says:

        Get your facts straight. This was an NRA case all the way, funded through their California arm, the CRPA Foundation. CGF has a companion case called Roberts pending in the Ninth that has yet to be ruled on.

        CGF’s directors frequently chided plaintiff Ed Peruta and his NRA legal team for even bringing the case. At one point, CGF openly accused NRA’s lawyers of malpractice in handling the case and repeatedly predicted the legal theory the NRA raised in attacking the San Diego policy instead of the state statute was a poor one and doomed to fail.

        I’m all for supporting grassroots efforts, but not a fan of revisionist history. If you want to support California’s gun efforts based on Peruta (and other NRA victories in California), give money to the NRA or CRPA Foundation.

  47. avatar NJ2AZ says:

    i’ve been reading over this decisions….i think this one line might give the most insight into how the courts see things:

    “although a State may prohibit the open or concealed carry of
    firearms, it may not ban both because a complete prohibition on public carry
    violates the Second Amendment and analogous state constitutional provisions.”

  48. avatar NJ2AZ says:

    This decision really is a good read

    “Because the Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits eschewed history and
    tradition in their analysis of the constitutionality of these regulations, despite the
    Supreme Court’s admonition that “the public understanding of a legal text in the
    period after its enactment or ratification” is a “critical tool of constitutional
    interpretation,” we find their approaches unpersuasive.”

  49. avatar Ralph says:

    Shocking and stunning.

    I just read the opinion, and I was thrilled with the Ninth’s scholarship and it’s willingness to strike down a law that it wanted to uphold. It was as impressive as Posner’s tour de force in Moore v. Madigan.

    The dissent’s main thrust that since longstanding prohibitions were thought presumptively valid in Heller and McDonald, and Cali’s “good cause” was a longstanding prohibition, so it was therefore valid. Which is stupid even for a Ninth Circuit judge.

    With the Seventh and Ninth Circuits holding one way and the Second another, this issue will be resolved ultimately by SCOTUS. Let’s just hope that the current majority doesn’t die first, allowing the moron with the phone and the pen to pack SCOTUS with his fascist ilk.

    BTW, Kagan might — might — end up being a sixth pro-2A Justice. Her vote in Abramski may be revealing, or not. We’ll see.

    1. avatar Dave357 says:

      It is mentioned in the comments to the Volokh Conspiracy WaPo post that the judges in the majority were Republican appointees, while the dissenting one is a Democratic appointee. This may not be the kind of composition one would get during a (likely?) review by the full circuit. Still, today’s decision is a stunner however it turns out in the end.

    2. avatar Unknown Prosecutor says:

      What scares me though is that the dissent is more “conservative” than the majority — meaning that the dissent described the right very narrowly (concealed carry in public) and the majority described it more “liberally” (concealed carry in public in light of the fact that open carry is banned). It would be very easy for the majority of an en banc rehearing to say something along the lines of “We decline to engage in judicial activism and we are only addressing the narrow question before us – whether or not California can cripple the right to conceal carry in public. On this very limited question, we decide that concealed public carry is not a core part of the 2nd Amendment, and therefore California’s ‘may-issue’ statute is constitutional.”

      Another interesting nugget is that the dissent basically says that the State, and by extension, the CA Attorney General, has no dog in this fight since the plaintiffs sued the county, not the state. That is a pretty big advantage for the plaintiffs, as they severely “outgun” (pun intended) the county in terms of legal talent. Still, I am worried that a full 9th Circuit will bail the county out. (“Help me Elena Kagan, you’re my only hope…”) It is interesting that the plaintiffs did not sue the State – surely that was a strategic decision.

    3. avatar Unknown Prosecutor says:

      Man, the more I read the dissent, the more worried I am that the 9th is going to weasel out by saying that the plaintiff’s should have sued the state — could really set this case back a couple of years….

    4. avatar ropingdown says:

      I agree that it is a mistake to think Kagan is presumptively anti-2A. Any justice willing to hunt ducks with Scalia using semi-auto shotguns should get credit for willingness to investigate. That is a start.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        It’s not just the duck hunting that gives me hope for Kagan. I’ve read every SCOTUS opinion to which she has been a party, and she does seem more like a scholar than a ideologue.

        It’s also worth noting that many opinions of the Roberts Court have been unanimous or nearly unanimous. This isn’t the Burger Court, with two sides dug in like it was WW1.

        As long as the Originalists have a majority, I can see Kagan joining it. On the other hand, Sotomayor is as predictable as the tides and as dumb as a box of hammers.

        1. avatar ropingdown says:

          I agree about Kagan’s scholarship and about the nature of this court. I also perceive changes in the assessment of concealed carriers, of what their role is in a community whose stability can break down, for example in the presence of a police sick-out or temporary ascendance of a corrupt regime encompassing both mayor’s office and PD, as occurred in NO. That takes time for outsiders to fix. A wider ‘force’ needs to be present to dissuade crime during such breakdowns. CCW people often (here, at least) consider themselves a bit anti-government. They actually have proven to serve a very stabilizing role, the old-fashioned function of citizens as local administrations came and went. Identified as non-criminals through permitting systems, they are actually a small-c concervative force for civil order. We have a shortage of such forces independent of particular unions or parties today. Perhaps I over-play the thought, but I hear it in the conversations of some decision makers.

        2. avatar rlc2 says:

          ropingdown- that’s a very interesting comment on the perception of CCWs:

          ” They actually have proven to serve a very stabilizing role, the old-fashioned function of citizens as local administrations came and went. Identified as non-criminals through permitting systems, they are actually a small-c concervative force for civil order.”

          and where you have heard that by decision-makers…

          Without compromising your discretion, and access- could you elaborate a bit-
          I seem to remember something similar in an article online- and recall the comments of the Detroit PD Chief- who I’d guess is seen as flamboyant by some.

          This is a worthy meme to explore, and expand upon, here at TTAG…
          theres got to be more quiet discussion of the same going on around the country,
          in jurisdictions where common-sense applies in the PDs and Sheriffs offices, when considering the implications for tough times ahead in a bad economic cycle.

          Despite the tin-foil hat wearers freaking out about MRAPs theres only so many of those out there, in this wide country, and

          IMHO, theres a lot more quiet, dependable citizens in places that have always relied on one another in case of emergency- vs the nitwittery that went on in Katrina, that I’d consider an exception to the rule,

          now the lessons are learned,
          and will be far-and-away pretty unlikely to occur in most of flyover country, where people regularly shrug off blizzards, floods, and other natural events that cause temporary tuff times, as part of a days work.

        3. avatar ropingdown says:

          rlc2: It wouldn’t be appropriate to discuss the people’s names, but I was most struck by the perception of a senior PA political leader and an intermediate-level appellate judge. It also is difficult to talk about for this reason: Clearly CCW types shouldn’t have the impression that they can or need to act in place of police when police are absent. The scope of action is circumscribed by state self-defense law. And yet clearly the frequency of their presence has a perceptible effect on those who commit crimes. Specifically, convicts express fear that their victims were armed. I personally take heart when I see more women exercise their right to carry…and to train. This increase reduces the violent criminal’s ability to profile citizens effectively, and can therefore magnify the positive restraining effect of “the unknown carrier.”

  50. avatar Hannibal says:

    Reading the decision, it just makes so much more sense than Heller’s mental gymnastics.

    1. avatar ropingdown says:

      The opinion explicitly relies on the lengthy historical review in Heller, and the holding, to make its own opinion succinct.

  51. avatar Mike Rubner says:

    This is good; however, it probably signals the left’s determination to get the 2nd repealed.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      That will never happen in the next several years.

      I know that that the masses hate guns with a passion in Hawaii, California, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and northern Illinois, but the rest of the country is “shall issue” and almost all of them are “open carry legal” because a majority of their residents like it that way.

      Remember, at least 38 states must approve a Constitutional Amendment for it to become law. There is no way in Hell that 38 states right now will vote to appeal the Second Amendment.

      1. avatar ropingdown says:

        Perhaps my experience is limited, but I don’t see masses hating guns in NY and NJ. I see masses hating other people having guns.

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Same difference.

          By the way there are lots of people in those states who actually do hate guns.

      2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        edit: I meant to type repeal, not appeal

      3. avatar Cuteqndfuzzybunnies says:

        The masses don’t hate guns so much. There are lots of people in CA that want to carry. Thy just have too small a state legislature and big cities that allow them to have what amounts to one party rule.

      4. avatar Jus Bill says:

        Um, in Maryland the masses in Baltimore City hate the 2A because it has no pictures. PG, AA, part of Howard and Montgomery counties profess to hate the 2A at cocktail parties, but are quietly arming themselves to the teeth. The rest of the state wants to secede.

        1. avatar ropingdown says:

          Your portrayal of actual sentiment and action in Montgomery County, MD, is quite like the reality of Montgomery County, PA. It’s increasingly common to make some defensive preparations, but not to speak of it unnecessarily. It’s more just the quiet reaction of educated people to some obvious dangers, much like quietly purchasing an extra fire-extinguisher.

  52. avatar NJ2AZ says:

    ““the very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of
    government . . . the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is
    really worth insisting upon.””

    i think i’m getting aroused…

    1. avatar ropingdown says:

      The language could well be adopted by SCOTUS in their next relevant opinion. Yet, it is very politic for the Supreme Court to let sensible analysis bubble up from the Circuits on important issues. They don’t always have that luxury.

  53. avatar Steve in MD says:

    So… is the Supreme Court going to touch this finally, or are they going to continue to avoid it like a radioactive snake?

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      Only time will tell. At this point I’m guardedly optimistic.

  54. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    I only want to see one word should the full circus hear it.

    Stet.

  55. avatar styrgwillidar says:

    A more immediate question is- when does the prohibition of requiring ‘good cause’ take effect? Immediately, or after appeals of the decision are exhausted?

    1. avatar GSRpositive says:

      Right. Or on a more personal note: “Where and how do I apply?”

  56. avatar Phillip Evans says:

    Hah hah, looks like Kommifornia will become a “shall issue” state.

    Of course, the corrupt and traitorous politicians there will try to get around it with onorous training and qualification criteria in order to get a carry license, along with a LONG list of off-limits places for license holders.

    The Supreme Court needs to lay the hammer down to keep the tyrants from doing stuff like this.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      Once you get a ccw in CA there are very few places you can’t carry. You can even carry in schools. But I live in Alameda county. Without a favorable court ruling I’m boned.

      1. avatar Brooklyn in da house says:

        +1

      2. avatar AlphaGeek says:

        I filed an inquiry with ACSO today asking whether they’d be revising their CCW licensing procedures and documentation in light of this decision. I also asked if they’d continue accepting applications while they revised the process to comply with this ruling. Hopefully I’ll hear back tomorrow.

        A number of CA Sheriff’s offices have reportedly responded to this decision by taking down their current process documents and/or posting notices that those processes are being revised. I didn’t rub it in by citing any of these in my love letter to ACSO, but I’m putting together a list just in case.

        1. avatar Brooklyn in da house says:

          That should be a interesting response.

    2. avatar Randy Drescher says:

      They will play untill it gets to damn costly to play.

  57. avatar Accur81 says:

    I cannot think of a greater violation of the spirit of the 2A than being required to show “just cause” to the government for the RKBA.

  58. avatar Kerry says:

    There is also the issue that California is banning virtually all semi-automatic handguns so what does it matter if you are allowed to carry when there is nothing left legal to own?

    1. avatar GSRpositive says:

      I remain optimistic that the microstamping law, and possibly even the roster, will be challenged and repealed before everything drops off the list.

    2. avatar MD says:

      Kerry – The microstamping issue applies to the roster of new guns for sale, not the ones already in people’s possession. So if you already own, say an M&P9, you may be able to carry it. You just won’t be able to buy another M&P, because its not on the roster oi approved handguns. As the poster above me pointed out, the microstamping issue and the roster may get chucked out eventually too.

    3. avatar GSRpositive says:

      The roster also only applies to commercial sales. PPTs are exempt.

      So if you live in CA and have 3 handguns, sell one to a friend! 🙂

    4. avatar jwm says:

      J frame S&W for the win. Think I’ll go buy another so I can have a NY reload.

  59. avatar JoshuaS says:

    To clarify, the 9th Circuit has NEVER had a full circuit hearing. It has only been requested 5 times, denied each time.

    Instead, “en banc” rulings are done with less than half the judges (random 11 out of 29), are even rarer than in other courts, and viewed less favorably by the Supreme Court. I doubt en banc will be granted. And if it is, absolutely toss up with a random selection of less than half the court

    1. avatar emfourty gasmask says:

      Not to deny your statement but is there documented truth in that? I’m just lookin’ to give some people some hope here.

    2. avatar JeffR says:

      Slight correction. 10 are chosen at random. Chief Judge Kosinski automatically sits en banc. And he is as conservative and smart as they get.

      1. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

        and he likes hot women . . . wonder if the “prettiest” AG in America will try to charm him on appeal? ha.

  60. avatar dwb says:

    whoda thunk this would happen in Kalifornia. Not yet getting hopes up. Best case is Maryland will be shall issue with 74 million hours of training in 2015

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Will that be 74 million consecutive hours, or can they be broken up over the course of several lifetimes?

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        Probably the latter. After conveying the firstborn male to the State.

  61. As noted, this was a three judge panel…if appealed to the full Circuit, and the full Circuit agrees, the whole 9th Circuit will issue a decision. If the full circuit does not choose to hear it, the state may appeal to the Supremes…if the full Circuit hears it; that decision could be appealed to the Supremes. As there is a split among the Circuits, it is seems likely that the Supremes would agree to hear the case and it is not necessarily clear what the outcome will be…depends who is sitting on the Court when they get the case.
    This will take some time to decide…
    Great decision as it stands!

    1. avatar JoshuaS says:

      The full circuit will not hear it. That is not how it works with the 9th

  62. This 9th Circuit rule goes along with the 7th Curcuit Illinois case. The 7th Circuit orderdd Illinois to pass a concealed carry law.

    A little later the Illinois State Supreme Court ruled the other Illinois gun laws unconstitutional based on the US Second and Illinois 22nd Bill of Rights.

    If the whole 9th Circuit overturns the ruling it will setup a SCOUS case because the Court Districts are in conflict. If that happens it will be a national rule and it will apply to New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Hawaii and is a short step to declaring reciprocity in all states.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      Take that all you CA haters.

  63. avatar cubby123 says:

    FN A,Finally some REAL common sense,not the left wing ABUSED version.Now we start working on recalls ,then jail terms for politicians,is public castrating a bit much ya think?

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      is public castrating a bit much ya think?

      How can you castrate Nancy Pelosi or Wendy Davis?

      And Dannel Malloy and Martin O’Malley have no balls to begin with.

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        With a dull spoon. That goes for all of them.

  64. avatar Ralph says:

    IIRC, a Ninth Circuit panel ruled in Nordyke v. King that the Second Amendment was incorporated by the 14th, and that was before SCOTUS made it official in McDonald. So maybe the Ninth is approaching something near to judicial sanity. Maybe.

    Nordyke was reviewed en banc not once, but twice.

    1. avatar Cuteqndfuzzybunnies says:

      The ninth has a reputation as being liberal and that is deserved. The also have a reputation as being very libertarian. This is often mistake. For liberalism until it conflict with progressive statist ideas like gun control.

  65. avatar Paul53, aka Ima Yeti says:

    Dang Constitution is almost 250 years old and it still works! Take a minute to appreciate the genius of those who wrote it.

  66. avatar jirdesteva says:

    Has anyone seen Dianne? Has she jumped off the bridge yet?

    1. avatar Model 31 says:

      Yea, but she had her broom.

      1. avatar rlc2 says:

        DIFI: “I’m melting..Oh what a world, who would have thought a good little like you would destroy my beautiful wickedness…”

  67. avatar Randy Drescher says:

    Wonaful Wonaful Wonaful, I don’t have the legal knowlege of many here, what is sinking in though sends a chill up my spine. Imagine that, the Constitution actually counts for something.

    1. avatar Bill from California says:

      So for all the lawyers out there, what does this means in terms of a time line to actual CCW shall issue in CA? does the 9th circuit have to approve “en banc” first, or not? I

      f this ruling stands, does the legislature have a certain time frame to set up CCW procedures, or can each county, if they want, just start issuing as a shall issue county without worry that the state will do something to stop them? I live in Alameda county so I don’t think that there will be an enthusiastic response to my showing up at the county courthouse early next week for my permit.

      Thanks

      Bill

  68. avatar Jacob92530 says:

    So does this mean that effective immediately all sheriff departments must stop using the “good cause” reasoning when considering approving or denying CCW applications? Does that mean personal protections is now a acceptable reason for approval? Those are not rhetorical questions, I’m genuinely curious. Because if that’s the case I know myself and a number of others who will be starting the application process post haste.

  69. avatar 7.62x54r says:

    Jeebus H. Columbus!! Does this mean that somewhere west of Nevada someone used the common sense© definition of common sense©?

  70. avatar Jus Bill says:

    Let the Liberal screeching and rending of garments begin.

    And the Malicious Midget opens his prodigious checkbook…

  71. avatar NYisNOWcalifornia says:

    Anyone following this thread might want to help out with this poll:

    http://www.utsandiego.com/polls/2014/feb/self-defense-enough-concealed-weapon-permit-hp/

    [LINK FIXED – Matt]

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Use this link instead: http://www.utsandiego.com/polls/2014/feb/self-defense-enough-concealed-weapon-permit-hp/

      The original link goes to the results page where one cannot vote.

      1. avatar NYisNOWcalifornia says:

        Thanks. I caught that after the time to edit expired.

        1. avatar rlc2 says:

          Done. As of the time stamp of this post, the votes were 92% for, vs 7% against, of 1700+ votes,

          for the question- is desire for self defense enough reason to be granted a concealed weapon permit.

  72. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    Did I just hear Bloomberg and Shannon Watts’ collective brain explode??

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Kaboooommmm!

    2. avatar SteveInCO says:

      You must have good hearing, then. Such a small amount of explosive!

  73. avatar JW says:

    Amen and Aloha!

  74. avatar Aaron says:

    This is great news. If and when CA loosens their insane “disarm law abiding citizens” laws and policies, I MIGHT be willing to move there. It’s a beautiful state ruined by 30 or so years of bad policies.

  75. avatar JT says:

    Residents of New Jersey, Hawaii and other “may issues” states await further developments with bated breath.

    Isn’t Hawaii in the 9th circuit? If so, wouldn’t this ruling impact their laws as well?

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Yes. Peruta was argued along with another California case, Richards, and a Hawaii case. As I understand it, Hawaii is (virtually or actually) “no issue” under a “may issue” law.

  76. avatar Rick says:

    Perhaps there is hope for the People’s Republic of MA with our May (or May Not) Issue and Class A and B permits. 8~)

  77. I hardly leave responses, but I browsed some of
    the remarks here BREAKING: CA Ninth Circuit Strikes Down "Good Cause" Carry Provision – The Truth About Guns.
    I actually do have a couple of questions for you if you do not mind.
    Is it only me or do a few of the responses look like they
    are left by brain dead individuals? 😛 And, if you are posting on additional social
    sites, I’d like to keep up with everything new you have to post.
    Would you make a list of the complete urls of your shared pages like your twitter feed, Facebook page or linkedin profile?

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email