BREAKING: 9th Circuit Court Denies Peruta Appeal; California Gun Rights Restored

CA 9th Circuit Court (courtesy latimes.com)

You may remember that the 9th Circuit Court struck down the “good cause” provision for concealed carry in the County of San Diego. The ruling went to appeal, thanks to The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and Presidential heartthrob Attorney General Kamala D. Harris. The two parties attempted to weigh-in on the side of – you guessed it – reversing the ruling, so that statists like San Diego Sheriff William Gore could continue to deny Americans their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. [Click here for Aaron J. Bailey most excellent analysis of the appeal.] The Court has ruled that Brady’s and Harris’ interest in Peruta came too late in the game. [Click here for the Court’s decision.] In the Court’s words . . .

The panel denied motions to intervene, which were filed after the panel’s opinion and judgment holding that a responsible, law-abiding citizen has a right under the Second Amendment to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.

TTAG tipster dwb breaks it down for us . . .

Harris (“Pretty please, may I join the case?”)- DENIED

Brady (“Blood in the Streets!”)- DENIED

Peruta is settled law in 9th. There is no one to appeal. If you live in CA, you may now do a victory dance and exercise your natural civil rights in CA. “Self defense” must be recognized as a good cause for a carry permit. Sheriffs are going to have to start abiding by Peruta if they are not already.

It also means it’s now extremely likely that the Supreme Court will take up a “may issue” carry case, because the 9th is now in direct conflict with other decisions. There are two other cases – including Baker (HI may-issue) – pending in the 9th Circuit which depend on Peruta. Probably one of those gets appealed (likely, Baker).

Hopefully, shall-issue is coming to a state near me (Marylandstan).

comments

  1. avatar Vhyrus says:

    Wow…. Cali just became more bearable than the entire NE coast. Mind blown.

    Expect much BS on the part of many Cali sheriffs including NFA like wait times for your CC permit.

    1. avatar DavidT says:

      Hey, new Hampshire has a coast, albeit a short one, and we’re shall issue. It’s not all of the northeast that sucks.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Maine has an impressive Atlantic ocean coastline and they are shall-issue as well.

        1. avatar jotch says:

          I just received mine!

        2. avatar RetLEO says:

          How ironic. I used to tell people that Maryland was like California (jacked up) but California had better weather. As far as CC goes, Md just fell behind.

        3. avatar m11_9 says:

          You have to go through NY or Canada to get there though, right?

      2. avatar Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:

        Keep electing dumbocrat Massholes and see how long that lasts.

        Live Free or Don’t.

        1. avatar DavidT says:

          I keep trying to convince people that’s a bad idea, but as more of them move north to escape the hell they’ve created in Mass it gets harder.

      3. avatar Russ Bixby says:

        Vermont isn’t on the coast, but it’s in “that area,” which is I suspect what you mean.

        After all, some o’ them Southern States do all right.

        Constitutional carry. Largely blue. Neener, neener and likewise neener.

        1. avatar Never Trust Blue says:

          And it’s only a matter of time before those “largely blue” voters flooding in from Massaholia get one of their perennial bills to regulate guns “reasonably” through the Vermont legislature.

      4. avatar DispositionMatrix says:

        NH is not really shall-issue. The wiki keeps getting changed, but the gist is that “suitability” is recognized while there is no statutory definition thereof. In short CLEOs can deny because they don’t like the way you look. Allegedly they are starting to deny renewals based on traffic tickets. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_New_Hampshire

    2. avatar Kyle in CT says:

      CT, while a royal pain in the butt, is a shall-issue state. Some municipalities try to exert illegal control over the process, but since it is ultimately a process that is centralized at the state level with clear requirements, they have no real power over the decision. The state firearms board has clearly communicated that an “issuing authority” (i.e. the local police) cannot require applicants to submit additional information above the state requirements in order to have their application considered. In addition, an applicant’s suitability may only be determined by proof of acceptable firearms training, that you are over 21, are not in the US unlawfully, and that you pass a criminal records check.

      1. avatar Mopar says:

        Sorry, but CT is may issue, not shall issue.
        As long as you can legally be denied a permit in CT by the local authority for issues that are subjective and do not make you a prohibited person it’s not a shall issue state.

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          “Shall issue”, but can be denied for capricious and arbitrary reasons? Where’s Inigo Montoya when you need him?

        2. avatar Ed says:

          By your standards more than half of the US is May Issue, probably including your state. Most have an out such as a character clause but they almost never hold up so it doesn’t matter.

        3. avatar Never Trust Blue says:

          Educate yourself, Ed.

          It’s clear you don’t understand the difference between “may issue” and “shall issue,” and are too lazy to bother to check those state laws you make reference to.

          Here’s a hint: in a “shall issue” state the government “shall” issue a license, unless they can provide a valid reason not to issue, based on objective criteria such as a record of criminal convictions or a legally documented history of substance abuse or mental illness — not an arbitrary and subjective decision about “character” by some bureaucrat.

    3. avatar Smokey Behr says:

      Some of the counties have been like that for a long time (Ventura County, I’m looking at you) where the wait for an appointment to submit the application has been up to 9 months. They only had one retired Sergeant working on CCW apps 2x/month, and they were doing it on purpose. The CalGuns Foundation (Now the Firearms Policy Coalition) has a Sunshine Project to expose the illegal and unethical practices by the County Sheriffs and Chiefs of Police in delaying and denying CCWs for law-abiding citizens.

      1. avatar PerplexedPistolero says:

        VCSD has stalled at every turn to deny folks in Ventura County their CCW. Not to mention, any handgun listed on the permit must be on roster to carry in Ventura County. Not a legal call, just their decision. Wait, you have a brand new G42 that you want to carry? Nope, not on roster, can’t do it, we don’t like those shifty, unsafe SSE guns. One of the most anti-gun departments short of ex-Feeb William Gore’s gang in San Diego County. Glad someone’s taking these departments to task.

      2. avatar Charlie Guenther says:

        I lived in Ventura County for 12 years. It’s a great place except for the CCW issue. I moved to Bakersfield, Kern County and discovered to my joyous surprise that Kern County is a 2nd Amendment oasis. Sheriff Donny Youngblood is PRO CCW. Kern County issues more CCW’s than the total of all of the other counties in the state. The summer heat can really take a toll on me, retired w a disability, but I’m happy knowing that my 2nd Amendment rights are in trustworthy hands.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          That right is supposed to be in your own hands… shall not be infringed.

        2. avatar 16V says:

          Kern County? You’ll need that CCW to defend yourself from the para-nazi-psycho cops. This was over a decade ago. At least back then, they warned you.

          http://www.snopes.com/photos/signs/kern.asp

          I knew to be very ‘aware’ venturing in to that neck of CA, even as a middle-class-clean-cut white guy, back in the day. The cops were out of control back then, and by all accounts even more nuts as of late.

          https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130902/08074824382/another-custody-death-kern-county-sheriffs-dept-third-four-months.shtml

          http://www.copblock.org/86/kern-county-ca-sheriffs-break-into-womans-home/

          http://www.bakersfieldnow.com/news/local/Man-dies-while-in-custody-of-Kern-County-Sheriffs-deputies-236893751.html

          If you have the right friends, I’m sure it’s OK for you. But not so much for anyone who isn’t connected.

    4. avatar Nick65 says:

      Try living here. You won’t think so.

    5. avatar JSIII says:

      I really hope the nations “hottest” Attorney General decides to appeal to the SCOTUS, I hope the SCOTUS takes it up and butt fucks every single may issue state.

    6. avatar James says:

      This was nice to read. I live in this stupid state, only because my daughters and grandkids are here. I live much farther north and in a mostly conservative county My wait for CCW was only three months for the background due only to the flood of applications, and no hassles from that point on.

    7. avatar Aaron says:

      celebration seems a bit premature. See Volokh. The 9th still needs to decide whether to rehear Richards and Baker en banc, or deny the petition for en banc. Until those are settled, the 9th could overturn Peruta.

  2. avatar George says:

    Any smack down to the Brady Bunch is nice!

  3. avatar LongBeach says:

    Excellent! First, I’m gonna need to buy an actual carry gun (not a full-size 1911). Then I’m gonna need to save up quite a few shekels to get through the whole process. Financial woes aside, this is very good news!

    1. avatar Asdf says:

      I used to live in Sacramento. I want to say that my CCW there was around $400 total after training, fees, and finger printing.

    2. avatar ThomasR says:

      I’ve carried a Kimber 1911 with a 5″ barrel OC for five years here in New Mexico. I don’t really notice the weight any more. A little more of an issue if you try to CC. But many people do. Maybe go with a Commander model with a 4″ barrel.

  4. avatar SteveInCO says:

    Fantastic news.

    Carry on!

    1. avatar Tomahawk says:

      I see what you did there.

  5. avatar ckirk says:

    Could there actually be hope on the horizon for New Jerseykstan?

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      ckirk,

      I hate to be the bearer of bad news: no I don’t think there is any hope for New Jersey in the courts. As I mentioned in my comment below, there was already a split in the Federal Circuit Courts and the U.S. Supreme Court already declined to hear the Woollard case to settle the split, much less actually strike down unconstitutional laws that infringe the right of We the People to keep and bear arms.

    2. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

      Unrelated, but equally ridiculous, I heard New Jersey has life time alimony…

      When I heard that I was floored, you’re better off killing your ex than paying them. At least there is a chance you might get out of prison one day for the murder, unlike never getting away from that alimony payment.

      NJ is more jacked up than I thought.

      1. avatar Ryan says:

        That actually just recently got reformed. Your Alimony duration can’t exceed the length of the marriage.

        1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

          Did they retroact that, or are all the poor bastards who got screwed in the past still screwed?

        2. avatar jwm says:

          ROHC, that’s what the old timers used to tell me was “The phucking you get for the phucking you got.”

        3. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

          Well, I’ve never gotten the one type so good it justified a life time’s worth of the other type.

    3. avatar Mr Pierogie says:

      Hahaha….no.

  6. avatar Stephen says:

    The link behind the picture is interesting.

  7. avatar Gene says:

    “The panel denied motions to intervene, which were filed after the panel’s opinion and judgment holding that a responsible, law-abiding citizen has a right under the Second Amendment to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.”

    Emphasis mine – WOW! Not just limited to one’s property or “curtilage thereof”

    1. avatar Roscoe says:

      Don’t think for a moment that the Demoncrats in Sacramento won’t continue to mine the Penal Code with myriad obscure statutes in an effort to convert every gun owner into a ‘prohibited person’.

      1. avatar Gene says:

        Agreed. It’s everywhere. I’m quite shocked that they didn’t limit it, though. Other courts wouldn’t touch the eztent to which self defense extends.

  8. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    “It also means it’s now extremely likely that the Supreme Court will take up a “may issue” carry case, because the 9th is now in direct conflict with other decisions.”

    There was already a split before this case became final: the 7th Circuit Moore v. Madigan decision in Illinois conflicts with the 2nd Circuit Kachalsky v. Cacace, 3rd Circuit Drake v. Filko, and 4th Circuit Woollard v. Gallagher decisions. All this decision does is tend to even the splits.

    For anyone who doesn’t know, the U.S. Supreme Court already declined to hear 4th Circuit Woollard appeal. Why would the U.S. Supreme Court weigh in now?

    This split in the Circuit Courts of Appeal … along with the U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to fix the split and strike down the unconstitutional laws that infringe our right to keep and bear arms clearly supports my argument that we have exhausted all peaceful means to secure our rights. What do we do now?

    1. avatar John M. says:

      Move to California, apparently.

    2. avatar Geoff PR says:

      IIRC, there is another 2A carry lawsuit in the pipeline to SCOTUS. If they refuse to grant cert. to it, there may be un-civil protests.

      With the video proof of the lie used to get the ACA passed, the Supremes _may_ decide a ‘lil un-offical payback may be in order.

      (And yes, I’m fully aware the 2A and Obamacare are completely different issues, that’s why I mentioned un-official payback.)

      Hey, it _might_ happen… There have been numerous examples of defendants pissing off a judge and paying the price for it.

      1. avatar Robb M says:

        Not as seperate as you might think. Drs will be asking if you own guns and how many. This is just a end run around a firearms registry. Plus, the fact that ACA is run by govt, they will have all your records, so I guarantee that at some point the mere fact that you saw a shrink will be used to deny someone their rights, no matter what they went there for. “I have a lot of stress at work” firearms permit DENIED

    3. avatar Sampson says:

      Perhaps an invitation for Congressional involvement? Maybe the Court deems firearms carry too much of a political issue to want to get involved.

    4. avatar dwb says:

      I was extremely disappointed when Woollard was denied, until Peruta. O’Scannlain (who wrote Peruta) is considered a giant. More likely, the court was just giving Peruta time to percolate. It was worth waiting for.

      A lot of people also thought a Republican gov would never win in Maryland. Yet here we are. Hogan won despite Brown, Brady, and Bloomberg running silly ads about guns on playgrounds and grocery stores.

      It’s hard to understate the impact of Peruta. It is so full of win, and it’s the gift that keeps on giving.

      Stay optimistic. You cannot win if you don’t play.

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        Nailed it!

      2. avatar Never Trust Blue says:

        Peruta isn’t finished. The 9th Circuit cases out of Honolulu and Yolo County are still pending and will be going to an en banc hearing. The Democrats still have a couple more opportunities to squash gun rights in the 9th Circuit.

        And keep in mind that the 9th Circuit, on a whole, has a reputation as the nuttiest and most fringe-left of all the federal Circuits.

  9. avatar Dave357 says:

    Is this really final? Aren’t there other cases in the 9th circuit that can become a vehicle for an en banc appeal?

    1. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

      Specifically this denies any further appeal at the circuit court level and no en banc.
      The only place they could go is SCOTUS and they don’t want to do that. If they did it could screw up everything. I mean not for gun owners, but the civilian disarmament machine.
      If it went to SCOTUS, and then was upheld still, guess what…
      NYC, DC, NJ, etc.. you now have to give concealed, or provide open carry. You have no choice, no justifiable need, nothing..
      Also based on what the ruling says, Kamal Harris, and Brady Campaign has no rights to the case. So unless the San Diego Sheriff decides to take it to SCOTUS, than it stands as is. So yeah it’s done..

      1. avatar Brooklyn in da house says:

        Does this mean i should and can apply in Alameda County?

      2. avatar Dave357 says:

        Just to dot the i’s:

        So, if the Baker case out of Hawaii goes en banc in the 9th circuit and is overturned, it still won’t affect Peruta and most of CA?

        Is sua sponte in Peruta itself out of the picture at this point?

      3. avatar ninjaTED says:

        In that case, go-go San Diego sherriff. I’d love to get may issue here in NY.

        1. avatar Neil D says:

          You really want shall issue, not may issue don’t you ? May issue leaves way to much discretion to the folks in power that may not want you to have a permit.

      4. avatar The Trouble with Timbo says:

        But who is going to go to SCOTUS? At this point isn’t Gore the only possibility? He has already stated he will abide by the 9th’s decision. I also don’t think the County Board of Supervisors wants to fund any more legal adventures.

      5. avatar styrgwillidar says:

        Based on the actions of Sheriff Gore thus far, I expect he’ll appeal. Ever since the original decision, this has been posted on their website:

        “Members of the public wishing to obtain a CCW permit under the standards articulated by the Ninth Circuit should be aware that the decision has not yet become final.

        Federal court rules prescribe a period of time which must elapse before the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings. Updates on the Peruta v. County of San Diego case may be viewed on the 9th Circuit’s web site”

      6. avatar donny77 says:

        The “problem” is the defendant is the Sheriff of San Diego. He has already stated they will accept the ruling and not appeal. This is when the CA Attorney General filed to intervene. Because she has been denied the right to intervene, she cannot appeal to the SCOTUS because she is not a party to the lawsuit. When the motions denied the law is final. The only party that can appeal, Gore, is not inclined to appeal.

        This is the beauty of this case. It didn’t attack the law, it attacked the application of the law. This has created a scenario where all the right people are not a party to the case.

        1. avatar Never Trust Blue says:

          Except that both Kealoha and Prieto are certain to go to an en banc hearing, and then be appealed to the entire 9th Circuit. America’s nuttiest and most left-wing Circuit.

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      PERUTA MAY BE FINAL BUT THE ISSUE IS NOT DEAD!!!! Apparently everyone seems to forget that there was a companion case, Richards v. Prieto (Yolo county). Sheriff Prieto HAS FILED A PETITION OR REHEARING EN BANC THAT HAS NOT BEEN RULED UPON. PRIETO HAS SPECIFICALL VOWED TO TAKE CASE TO THE SUPREME COURT IF HE LOSES.

      1. avatar Ron says:

        Then the supreme court he will go. I can’t see the 9th siding with us on Peruta and againts us with this case in Yolo country. If this gets to the supreme court, I believe He will loose thus turing every state in the country into a shall issue state.
        I will also wager that someone will QUITELY put a bug in his ear to ratched down.

        1. avatar Aaron says:

          the 9th circuit court en banc can overturn a 9th circuit 3-judge panel; THAT’S the issue still outstanding.

        2. avatar Aaron says:

          and to clarify further, the defendants in both Baker and Richards have requested en banc review, and IF the 9th en banc decides to take the hearing, and the overturns the panel on Baker or Richards, they also overturn Peruta.

    3. avatar JDub says:

      From Chuck Michel, Senior Partner at Michel & Associates

      “The Peruta ruling was a long overdue recognition of the right to obtain a license to carry a firearm to defend yourself. The Attorney General’s next action will determine whether the Peruta case ends here. Attorney General Harris could seek review of her request to intervene in the appeal by an eleven judge “en banc” panel of the Ninth Circuit, or by the Supreme Court. Regardless, pending requests for en banc review in similar cases that benefitted from the work done in the Peruta case could imperil the Peruta ruling. Supreme Court review of the Peruta decision would resolve this important issue once and for all.”

  10. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

    Happy day oh praise the lord happy day!

  11. avatar Fil says:

    Pretty happy. I live in San Diego (La Jolla). I’m going to apply now.

    1. avatar Neil D says:

      Keep us posted as to what happens when you apply. My guess is that you will be hassled and the permit delayed as much as possible. Hope that is not the case but as the folks down there are not used to this yet they will probably be dumbfounded when the first citizens apply for their permits. And I suspect the politicians above the line workers will be working hard to try to delay the process and find any excuse not to issue the permits.

      1. avatar styrgwillidar says:

        Well– as I understand it, they’ve already been accepting applications but not processing them until the final decision. So, new there will be a delay as they process what they already have.

    2. avatar B says:

      Got my application printed out! Just need to schedule my interview with them.

  12. avatar Ted says:

    May the SCOTUS strike down all the “may-issue” laws across the land.

  13. avatar Jomo says:

    Time for a pro-gun Snoopy dance!

  14. avatar Neil D says:

    I live in WA and we are a shall issue state. The law also says that you must receive your permit within 30 days (as I recall) from when you apply. However, the local Sheriff’s Dept always goes past that deadline with NO consequence. Their excuse is that they are understaffed and underfunded. And they do eventually issue the permit BUT you are far better off to apply in one of the local city police stations than at the Sheriff’s office if you want to actually get your permit on time. However, you cannot do that if you live in the county as I understand the law at this point. Bummer but until someone with deep pockets challenges them on this it will continue. Seems it is OK for the Sheriff’s office to break the law but not the citizens. What I am getting at is that it may be possible for San Diego police and/or Sheriff to delay the process even though the ruling, in effect, seems to say they must issue the permit.

    1. avatar Julian says:

      I guess it depends on where you are. I applied in Spokane Co. last summer, I submitted my application on Friday at 4:55 (right before closing), and had my license in my mailbox by Wednesday morning. Not a renewal, but my first license.

    2. avatar int19h says:

      Yes, you have to apply to your local PD (or county sheriff if you live in unincorporated county). In King, though, they do deliver on that 30 day period, in my experience.

      Your PD… well, you can always sue them. It would have to be an injured party.

  15. avatar Dozer says:

    It is much more complicated than the lede suggests.

    The AG and Brady bunch were denied intervention and lacked standing to appeal en banc.

    This now allows Gura to appeal en banc his case. Once again setting Gura up for a possible SC challenge. to which ALL the other challenges Gura has proposed have been rejected. someone should take the hint that SCOTUS does not want to hear from Mr. Gura any more. He had his 2 cases and 15 minutes of fame and they tire of him.

    If you remember, it was Paul Clement that came in and saved McDonald. Gura was livid at the divided time. But he only got 1 vote for his P/I arguement.

    listen to Scalia in his questioning in both Heller and McDonald try to help him out and him not getting the inferance from Scalia.

    Not to mention that the Sheriff of SD is holding all applications until the ENTIRE matter is resolved, not just the Peruta case.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      You are wrong on so many levels it is hard to know where to begin. A winning party does not have the right to appeal, so Gura, (Richards v. Prieto) at the moment anyway, isn’t taking his case anywhere. For that to happen, the en banc petition in Richards v. Prieto would have to be granted and its decision (which relied entirely on Peruta) reversed. That may still happen. Second Peruta is final as to the County of San Diego, and upon remand, is binding on Sheriff Gore, unless California appeals the order denying intervention. (I have no idea if that is appealable; if not, Peruta is finished.) Gore cannot await the finality of the decision in a separate case (Richards) to decide if he is going to process CCWs based on self-defense.

  16. avatar Jim March Simpson says:

    Wait…can’t one of the individual 9th Circuit judges take it en banc now?

    If not, if Peruta is really a done deal along with Hawaii, the next carry cases that could make it to the Supremes are the DC carry case, Palmer, and after that something in Mass. which is 1st Circuit, right?

    Also: one issue not yet addressed in the 9th is the fact that people from other states are completely blocked from carry in Cali… not only permits not recognized which is bad enough but statutorily no access to a Cali permit. Judge Scanlon in the DC case specifically blocked DC from behaving that way plus there is solid US Supremes case law on states inability to discriminate against incoming US citizen visitors from other states – see also Ward v. Maryland 1870 and Saenz v. Roe 1999. If Peruta holds those of us visiting Cali have permitless carry rights until the law is fixed.

    1. avatar John M. says:

      That’d be a sweet walk down Mission Beach.

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      Partly correct. Any en banc petition in Peruta was reliant upon the court first granting intervention, since Gore did not seek en banc. So as to Peruta, en banc is dead issue because there is no petition for review pending. HOWEVER, Sheriff Prieto, defendant in Richards v. Prieto,, who is a party and does have standing, did timely file a petition for rehearing which has yet to be ruled upon. If the panel denies his petition, there is a period of time in which one of the justices could also ask for en banc which would be determined by a vote of the entire bench, not just the panel. So while it is over for San Diego, the fat lady has yet to sing.

  17. avatar Roll says:

    Its a step in the right direction, but more needs to be done in order to make up for the rest of the moronic gun laws that plague California.

  18. avatar SouthernPatriot says:

    “Sportsman’s Paradise” (Cajun Country) has none o f the nonsense of California or some other states. Our fight is to get the concealed carry permit safety course fee to be fully deductible from Louisiana state income taxes to make it a wash.

    Complete open carry here. Easy concealed carry (no nonsense delays, hindrances, etc.), even teachers locally have concealed carry and they carry at school.

    My heart goes out and my kudos to California patriots who fought a good fight for easy concealed carry there. Don’t let your guard down, though. The statist and restrictive sheriff’s will try to obstruct, and likely just delay, delay, delay, all concealed carry permit applications.

  19. avatar JDS says:

    If its a right protected by the 2nd then why does anyone need to ask for permission? You don’t ask permission for a right, doing so makes it a privilege.

    1. avatar Chris says:

      Funny, isn’t it? I need permission to legally buy a guy, but a Criminal can get his 2A protection for $500 bucks overnight in Southie with no background checks.

  20. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    I’m not in favor of requiring carry licenses in the first place, but insofar as that’s the law, then shall-issue and a very clear set of simple requirements is the way to go.

    Although, in the several states whose shall issue statutes I’ve read (including my own beloved Texas), there’s usually still some wiggle room to deny an application based on local law enforcement’s recommendation pertaining to an applicant’s ability to exercise sound judgment

    Never heard of that actually being invoked, though. They would have to substantiate that claim during a hearing, anyway, if it ever came up. In CA, in the cities, I could see them dragging their feet every unconstitutional step of the way for every single application.

  21. avatar Accur81 says:

    Well, looks like folks in CA will finally be “allowed” to carry their DOJ-approved Glock Gen 3 (but not Gen 4) pistols with 10 round mags.

    That’s great news, because CA will be releasing a huge number of felons due to Prop 47.

    Don’t write off CA completely, don’t think you are safe in Washington due to 594, and fight for gun rights wherever you live. I donated about $1,000 to pro-gun politicians and causes this year all over the nation. I’d love to have an extra gun or two, but using money to fight for freedom is ultimately even better.

    1. avatar RLC2 says:

      Thank you, A81 for your service and your financial support. I’m going to squeeze some $$$ out of budget to thank CGF, here: https://www.calgunsfoundation.org/donate/
      and recommend all CA POTG do same, and note the many other lawsuits and initiatives they are funding, including the county by county effort to both standardize the CCW app, and force Sheriffs to abide by the law, which is now final.

      Note, counsel for the Baker case, in Hawaii, posting in a parallell thread to the one cited by RF, notes that hread asn a parallel thread on Calguns forums, started by Ed Peruta hikself, here, says the mandate (stayed pending decision on Harris’ request) will be issued in 7 days. I expect that is when Sheriff Gore will announce permit application procedures, which were put on hold pending final decision.

      http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=1003871

      I’m dusting off my notes from my first steps on CCW permit app and training, and will be going to Sheriffs office soon to apply. I expect there will be a line…

      1. avatar RLC2 says:

        Sorry guys for tortured text…fat fingering kindle with autospell that comes and goes…

        Here is a link to a longer Peruta thread, with more background and context if interested:
        http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=811282

        Bottomline, IMHO Gore would not likely appeal. He had already instructed his counsel to stop work after the mandate first issued, and had to be forced by court to respond with comment, when Harris asked to intervene.

        Politically, he was stuck with a generally moderate Board of Supervisrs probably telling him “don’t waste any more SD taxpayers money, and yet, still having to answer up to his LEO boss, the CA AG Harris, the ambitious San Fran limo liberal supported and POTUS “most attractive AG” who got where she is today by championing gun grabbing, and was once spoken of as the next female black POTUS.

        Somehow, I think the political climate has shifted, post Nov elections, and Gore will be busy processing apps, without any more snags. The process before was getting smoothed by Calguns challenges to un-necessary admin items, and the Sheriffs Office clerks were very helpul and fair, going by the book then, and now that simple “self defense” is allowed as good cause, the process for them will be more clear, and simpler, once they work through all the apps. There is a training requirement and a shooting test, so it is not as simple as other states.

        I expect we will see a notice from Sheriff in next few days on “how to apply”.

        1. avatar The mayor of Candor says:

          Although Kamela Harris is indeed a gun grabber it was her bedroom relationship with Willie Brown that got her where she is.

      2. avatar Mark N. says:

        Peruta is an NRA case. Richards v. Prieto is the CalGuns Foundation case.

        1. avatar RLC2 says:

          Thank you, I can never keep them all straight. I think its safe to say that a hallmark of the success lately is an understanding that the combination of a good case on its merits, a symathetic or at least controllable plaintiff (embody I am llooking at you…) with nationally qualified counsel, working together with locals and big money to pay for the patient, wise, strategy to win, partering with other national and state groups.

      3. avatar B says:

        If you really want to support calguns and you use amazon, you can use their smiles program to donate part of your order to them.

  22. avatar Kevin says:

    Michigan isn’t a bad place to be a gun owner. The state recently removed the gun boards you used to have to go before during the CPL application process. I took my class on a Sunday, took my paperwork to the county courthouse the next day and by that Friday I had my license in the mail.

    1. avatar KingSarc48265 says:

      Wow, what county? Wayne county took 60 days to process my renewal over this past summer. 2 months without a permit in metro Detroit was NOT fun.

  23. avatar freeport56 says:

    As a California Resident and CCW holder this is AWESOME NEWS. It is a direct slap in the face to our Leftist Government !

  24. avatar stateisevil says:

    Massa will now issue a permission slip to carry concealed only. It’s only a misdemeanor to carry and not have a permit. Wait times will be years.

    1. avatar RLC2 says:

      Note to newbs like me: be very careful with what you read on the interenet about gun laws.
      Especially in CA where the laws are complicated.
      IANAL so I get info from the experts on gun laws, before I risk my freedom and wealth by ignorance.
      Can’t do my family any good locked up.

      Read here, and scroll down to “wobblers” for unlicensed carry which can be felonies.
      http://www.shouselaw.com/12025.html#4.3

      Another REALLY good source, from Michel, attorneys on Peruta:
      http://www.calgunlaws.com/legal-resources/

  25. avatar former water walker says:

    Good for California! I live in Cook County,Illinois and it is definitely better. Things change…I
    got pretty p-o’d having Indiana jerks tell me Illinois would never get CC and I should just move to Indiana.

    1. avatar Never Trust Blue says:

      You should move to Indiana.

      You’d pay less in taxes and live in a more pleasant and honest state.

      Anyone that stays in Chicago of their own free will deserves whatever happens to them.

  26. avatar Rick says:

    So what happens to the “you can regulate concealed carry, you can regulate open carry, but you cannot regulate concealed and open carry” part of Peruta?

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      +1

      If THAT isn’t held through then we can see a slight of hand switch of a privilege for a right. In the end of it all, I wouldn’t be surprised if years from now SCOTUS weasels out a ruling to do just that; eliminate the right and install a privilege in its place. Universal background checks ought to fail for the same reason; there must be a way to transact without a background check somewhere in keeping with the right. However, the banning of former felons from the RKBA being law of the land doesn’t give me much hope of rulings that follow the Constitution being the long term end result.

    2. avatar RLC2 says:

      I dont think it was quite that simple, but IANAL and defer to those who are, or Mark N here who has been pretty concise on this and the GVRO legislation.

      IMHO, open carry is already permitted, but in so few ways and places, that it was in effect a ban.
      That “ban” and the restrictive good clauses on concealed carry which did not include self defense, together became a 2A right denied, in San Diego county only, but by precedent applied to all other CA counties, if anyone were to sue.

      And it was that careful focus, plus the patience of Gura, and local counsel, Michel, to cite Heller, McDonald and the latest constitutional scholarship, including Volokh and others, in oral argument that just blew away the poor lawyer for San Diego, which, btw was probably why Harris never sent anyone there the first time, although invited in advance…and the step-by-step irrefutable logic of the argument supported by the precedent, that allowed OScannlain to lay it all out in what resident TTAG legal beagle Ralph has called “powerful, brilliant”, etc. I’d look for an article in WAPO soon, by Volokh or Kopel for more insight.

      Someone needs to update Wikipedia, too, as I believe Peruta will be properly seen as a historic milestone signaling the national sea change underway. It will be interesting to see how this affects the Palmer DC gun permit ordnance rewrite…methinks some twisted panties and spinning heads on the progtarded Council there, by weeks end….;)

  27. avatar JohnC says:

    I live in Orange County and was excited when the sheriff decided to follow the Peruta decision right away unlike other counties. My instructor warned us that if the decisions was overturned then all the new permits would have likely bee revoked. Now I don’t have to worry about it:)

    1. avatar Jacob says:

      I live in neighboring Riverside County, I was quite interested to hear the OC sheriff’s decision to accept CC applications Prior to the ruling. You mentioned you applied for a CCW permit, have you received your permit yet or is it taking a long time to be processed? How long did it take, I know others in the OC who would love to have the answer to that question.

  28. avatar Jimbo says:

    The only way it will get recognized in Maryland is if someone here gets arrested for carrying with an out of state permit and pushes it up the chain, claiming good faith and credit clause violation. Marriage and drivers licenses are recognized, why not CCW?

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      OOS driver’s licenses are generally recognized due to a multistate compact, but young drivers from one state may find that their licenses are not recognized out of state. Marriage licenses are not recognized; whether out of state marriages are recognized depends on state law. My license to practice law was not recognized by any state except my own.

      Licenses are only recognized if state law says so. Court decrees are given full faith and credit, as are some other legislative and executive actions, but licenses are usually not.

    2. avatar John from PA says:

      MD’s Governor can literally direct the Maryland State Police Chief (Governor appointed position) to “accept self-defense” as a “good and substantial reason” and Maryland will effectively become a shall-issue state. That’s MD’s best course of action in the short term. They will eventually have to get the legislature to strike that line though to prevent another far left Governor from directing the MDSP from doing the opposite.

      Hopefully, if Hogan does this EARLY in his Governorship. The people of MD will see that there isn’t “Blood running in the streets” and push even harder then they have of late make MD shall issue. It will also give them proof that’s close to home (because for some reason facts in from the FBI and other dates don’t matter) to combat the propaganda from the anti side.

      MSI has been doing good work in this fight. Although I’m not in that state anymore, I still donate to them when I can. I have family I care about down there.

  29. avatar Nelson says:

    Perhaps it’s high time the citizenry MANDATE ALL govt employees from first taking and 100% passing the strict constructionist Constitution test, and declare all their assets and risk it, if they violate their oaths, starting with the ‘judges’ and ‘lawyers’ a class of dimwits to whom the very concept of NON-case’law’ and the question of actual constitutionality is a foreign idea.

  30. avatar Hannibal says:

    I wish the appeal had been denied for lack of merit rather than standing.

    But nevermind. A win’s a win. Good move by the 9th circ… wait, what? That’s something I don’t say often.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Finding lack of merit is beyond the scope of a denial of rehearing en banc. Such a finding — that the county’s case was not meritorious — was already made when Peruta won the case. There’s no need for the court to say “and we really, really mean it.”

  31. avatar preston says:

    Hallelujah!!

  32. avatar RLC2 says:

    One last observation; CA gun owners, ie Calguns, stopped infighting, and hired good help on Peruta, with NRA bucks, and SAF weighing in as amicus, among others. As a matter of recollection, that evolution from mass pi$$ing contest, to careful focused, patient leadership AND support by most CA POTG, is what worked, in Peruta. I am not interested in touching old scabs, and note even the forumsvat Calguns,net got cleaned up, and reorganized, to reflect some of that, but mention it because that is what works. A lot of very passionate and hard working folks who put aside their differences and supported a quarterback carrying the ball.

    And in CA the game is still underway, but MUCH more needs to be done. I am saying thanks here to all those CA POTG, you know who you are, to Ed Peruta and Counsel, to NRA, SAF and especially CGF. This is the model that is working in CA. WA POTG, you might want to take notes….

    And I am reminded of Gene Hoffman’s signature “never, ever, ever choose not to be an NRA member…”

    Thank you for restoring my 2A right to defend my family, armed with a gun, for self defense, in and outside my home.

    1. avatar Accur81 says:

      Hope you can get a CCW forthwith.

  33. avatar raptureRaptor says:

    Once before I became a Gun Owner I spoke with a retired sheriff on how he felt regarding citizens owning guns here in california. He stated blatantly that there is no reason for a citizen to be armed as there is a police force. That discussion stuck with me for many years which lead me to not research into what firearms I should purchase. Years later a friend was watching a kid get beaten to a bloody pulp by several assailants, being that he hated calling the police he still done so at the site of the beating and requested immediate assistance for the kid. The response from the police was that “There was a reported gun on scene, we will not be showing up.” And hung up.

    I really enjoy my Sig Patrol 716 and my RockIsland Armory 1911.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      That story sounds like complete BS.

  34. avatar Robert says:

    I’m glad. However, two minor complaints:

    1) Statist is someone who supports statism (per the Merriam-Webster dictionary), and statism (ibid) is the “concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry.” As such, that’s a very broad and vague term, and your use of it doesn’t make much sense outside of your use of it to insult others who stand against gun rights. So I’d appreciate it if you would pick a different term of derision to use.

    2) You can support the state while not agreeing with it. Too often, due to you and others, this term “statist” is then applied to people who do other honorable things like obey the laws.

    I think the use of it as a term of derision not only makes it negative in connocation (which is artificial: by your use of the word you change it into something bad) but then muddies the definition.

    My advice: a different word, please. While I could give a krap what people try to use to insult me, because I have thick skin, the problem I believe is that giving the word a negative connotation can lead people to believe that supporting their government in any way is therefore “statism” and bad. Our government isn’t perfect, but surely not everything they do is wrong, hence supporting them in even one thing need not be bad.

    Sure, let’s fix the government, but let’s not insult people just because they support the government in some way, shape, or form. I’m usually very vocal when the government is doing something wrong, but I’m not going to take my time to breed a generation of rebels without causes that only add to the headache of those within government who are actually trying to make a difference, few as they may be.

    That being said, don’t call me statist when I obey the speed limit and make fun of someone who got a speeding ticket just because they couldn’t obey a law that simple 🙂

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      Statism, in this context, is not a matter of government control of industry, but rather government control of the individual. It is an entirely appropriate term to describe the condition of the rights, faculties, and pursuits of the individual being subjected to control by the State, rather than by the individual himself.

      What you quoted from Miriam-Webster is more akin to the definition of Socialism.

    2. avatar RLC2 says:

      Robert, I agree with Chip, but understand where you are coming from if you see this term is personally insulting. I’m probably the worst when it comes to lecturing like a speech nanny, then turning around and stepping over the line on the snark. You gotta remember some of it is insider short hand for a characteristic of groups, like “progtards” or “mommies demanding action” that obviously doesnt apply to any one individual. Its humor, dark, sometimes and twisted, but just like in an emergency room, you gotta joke or your head will explode.

      And given the extent of deliberate abuse of executive action, or legislative outright tyrrany, over common-sense and wishes of the majority of citizenry, by big bucks, if you are paying attention, the gun-rights arena can take on a little bit of that feel….so, don’t take the snark personally. Its not about you.

      After awhile you get the sense of the regular posters and know if its meant in sharp-elbowed fun, or
      if its a one-off, its probably trolling by some idiot gone lost from their village at Kos, or PufffHo’s.

      Welcome, anyway, to TTAG.

    3. avatar Ralph says:

      I’m taking your advice, Robert, and in the future will refer to such people not as “statists,” but as “a$sh0les.”

    4. avatar Stephen M. says:

      Anyone who values human freedom is a illegalist anyway so I fail to see a reason to give half a fuck….

  35. avatar poorpaddy says:

    I’m skeptical this is legit information. I do not see any of this documented in official channels and this site seems to be the only source of this information at this time.

      1. avatar poorpaddy says:

        Troll much? No not really, its called reading a trying to be informed. The fact that I checked the 9th district court site and it had yet been published is what made me skeptical because the only source confirmed was a post by Pertua on GalGuns. So no need to be an ass about it. Thank you for the link to the pdf.

        1. avatar The Trouble with Timbo says:

          There is a link to the document included in the original post. I had read the decision by 8 PM (Pacific) this morning.

        2. avatar Ralph says:

          I checked the 9th district court site

          Maybe you should have checked the 9th Circuit court site.

  36. avatar jwm says:

    It’s a damn good thing I didn’t listen to a lot of keyboard commandoes and make my family become refugee’s in our own country. Now I will be able to enjoy the weather, the diverse landscapes and be able to watch my grandkids grow with me influencing them to become POTG.

    And I’ll be able to do that with a legal j frame in my pocket. We. Are. Winning! The refugees should be the losers, the grabbers.

  37. avatar RLC2 says:

    BTW, Kudus to RF and TTAG for being on this so fast. Other than Ed Perutas own post on Calguns, this is first place I got notice. Fox is now running a blinking red Breaking News banner, so the word is spreading…
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/12/new-court-decision-likely-ends-california-restrictions-on-conceal-carry-permits/

  38. avatar Royal Tony says:

    Anyone know if this will have any effect on the supposed “shall issue” policy in Monterey County? As of now, their version of shall issue recognizes self defense as “legitimate”, yet they interview your neighbors, co-workers, boss, mother etc. and ask how they “feel” about you carrying. Not to mention the psych evaluation that you have to pay for. Definitely makes bearing arms into a privilege, not a right. A privilege that is subject to the whims of others, and ultimately, some shrink that works for the county. Hopefully this ruling will help?

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      No change in the immediate future. The Cal Penal Code provisions for the issuance of a CCW require both “good cause” (addressed by Peruta) and “good moral character.” The investigations that you mention are focused on the good moral character component which remains in effect. The County does not want to issue to whack jobs, people with anger management issues, and police officer wannabees. There is a lawsuit recently filed by CalGuns Foundation pending concerning the “additional” requirements imposed by one or more departments, such as liability insurance naming the Sheriff (which is legally unnecessary as the Sheriff is immune from claims arising out of the issuance of a license)and multiple letters of recommendation (including in some cases letters from your employer and/or neighbors who may have reasons for objecting to you carrying independent of your moral qualification). I am not sure of the scope of the practices they are attacking, but I believe they are arguing that if it is not required by the Penal Code it cannot be required by the Sheriff.

  39. avatar Tiostiont says:

    ᴜᴘ ᴛᴏ I sᴀᴡ ᴛʜᴇ ᴅʀᴀғᴛ sᴀʏɪɴɢ $5385 , I ᴅɪᴅ ɴᴏᴛ ʙᴇʟɪᴇᴠᴇ ᴛʜᴀᴛ…ᴍʏ… ᴍᴏᴍ ɪɴ-ʟᴀᴡ ᴀᴄᴛᴜᴀʟɪᴇ ᴇᴀʀɴɪɴɢ ᴍᴏɴᴇʏ ᴘᴀʀᴛ ᴛɪᴍᴇ ᴏɴ ᴛʜᴇɪʀ ᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ʟᴀʙᴛᴏᴘ. . ᴛʜᴇʀᴇ ʙʀᴏᴛʜᴇʀs ғʀɪᴇɴᴅ ʜᴀs ʙᴇᴇɴ ᴅᴏɪɴɢ ᴛʜɪs ғᴏʀ ᴏɴʟʏ ᴛᴡᴇɴᴛʏ ᴏɴᴇ ᴍᴏɴᴛʜs ᴀɴᴅ ᴊᴜsᴛ ᴘᴀɪᴅ ғᴏʀ ᴛʜᴇ ᴍᴏʀᴛɢᴀɢᴇ ᴏɴ ᴛʜᴇɪʀ ᴀᴘᴀʀᴛᴍᴇɴᴛ ᴀɴᴅ ᴘᴜʀᴄʜᴀsᴇᴅ ᴀ ʙʀᴀɴᴅ ɴᴇᴡ Sᴀᴀʙ 99 Tᴜʀʙᴏ . sᴇᴇ ᴛʜɪs…………………http://2.gp/Fgre

  40. avatar Old Salt says:

    Just checked San Diego County Gore’s Sheriff’s web site. They are still applying the highly restrictive “may carry” rules for CCW issuance. NO CHANGE (i.e. I can’t get a permit). “Self Defense” should be at the top of his 4 item category list, but instead item 2 is “Personal protection (w/documented threats)”. (Aside: Are the two murders that occurred in a park a block from us, and 200 feet from our normal evening walking route, an adequate “documented threat”?)

    What is needed is about a $10K automatic fine every time Gores office requires a reason on a CCW application. But this is California; never happen through the legislature and any initiative would be swatted down with Big Donkey $$$. Maybe someone can file for a count injunction forcing Gore to remove the rules RESTRICTING Constitutional rights, until the final court disposition.

    Regardless of how the 9th Circuit rules or what Gore says, his office is still apply rules, refusing CCW for just about every citizen other than the politically connected. A citizen would have to successfully sue to get them to change this, I suppose, but oh, wait, someone just did that and it didn’t they? Maybe the problem is that it’ll just take the S.D. IT staff some time to update their web site – like 5 or 10 years? It’s not like Gore hasn’t know how this was going to go. He’s just stalling as long as he possibly can, creating challenges or allowing confederates to create legal challenges to leave the “may (not) carry” rules in effect.

    1. avatar Robert Bridges says:

      All of this hinged on a 5-4 vote at the Supreme Court level, so liberty and freedom are still in peril. Some in law enforcement consider keeping the streets safe for cops is the gold standard. Making the streets “safe for cops” does not make the streets safe for private citizens.

    2. avatar Abad says:

      And Calguns has categorically stated that they will be happy to take to court any jurisdiction that does not conform with the Ninth Circuit Court’s decision. There will be resistance, but I see
      California going Shall Issue sooner rather than later.

  41. avatar JoshuaS says:

    I fully expect lawsuits will need to be filed on many countries. At least OC, which had been scheduling “interviews” into 2016, started speeding up the process, the Sheriff asked for funding for more staff to do CCW applications. Of course the law has no requirement for an interview- so getting rid of that would expedite things considerably.

    The CCW law was changed in 2011, and (suprisingly) in a good way. Less capricious, caps on fees and deadlines for them to decide. All of which IAs have ignored, even ones that do issue, charging more (PC 26190), or taking longer than allowed (90 days from application or 30 days from completion of background check PC 26205.). And getting info from them on their policies is usually impossible (in violation of PC 26160.)

    A common tactic is to withhold submitting the background check to the DOJ until after an interview, which is scheduled months ahead. While the law requires the DOJ to “promptly” act on such requests, and requires a decision by the IA within 30 days of doing the background check, and requires, after determining just cause, that the IA refer the applicant to required training, it doesn’t explicitly say they cannot withhold the BC paperwork thus extending the timeline….

  42. avatar MGT says:

    I hope the stalling gambit stops soon.

    This is currently happening in San Joaquin County.

    Sheriff only approved LTCs after Perut,a before his election (as opponent was 2A friendly), but stopped doing them after he was elected.

  43. avatar Andy says:

    Fist bump for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals , finally they get one right on the firearm issue ! Be prepared and ready . Keep your powder dry .

  44. avatar Abad says:

    So all y’all that said California should fall into the ocean because of gun rights issues? Who bad-mouthed California at every turn in spite of those of us who realize that it isn’t all libtards and looneytunes? Kiss my Californian a**…

    You dished it out, now eat some crow and be quiet about it.

  45. avatar jwm says:

    I got up and was on my way to work this AM when I saw a unicorn shitting skittles on my front lawn. Kinda wondered what that was all about.

  46. avatar Arod529 says:

    As a one who does not live in Cali, does this apply to all of California? So what is the status, can one open carry freely throughout Cali now?

  47. avatar Mike Souza says:

    The Peruta vs. San Diego 9th Circuit Appeals decision will be cited as case law for every case still open anywhere in the country; no judge is that dumb to go against a series of similar 2nd Amendment rulings – 2 from the Supreme Court. This ruling along with DC vs. Heller (2008), and McDonald vs. Chicago (2010) are landmark rulings in favor of the 2nd Amendment. The (liberal) 9th Circuit showed reluctance to entertain a request today – 12th November, 2014 – by CA State Attorney General Kamala Harris for a re-hearing by the full-court. The full 9th Circuit realized their dilemma – going against their colleagues’ 3-judge panel’s ruling (which is usually a no-no ’cause you have to see them daily for the rest of your life), or running the risk of getting bitch-slapped by the Supreme Court, which sent a clear message with the Heller and McDonald cases. You can safely surmise that the big fight is over – all that’s left for handgun conceal-carry is some mopping-up operations. You will see Police Chiefs and Sheriffs throughout the country fall in line with San Diego and Orange County. They, like the courts tend to follow the leader (to avoid costly lawsuits, which they will most certainly lose anyway).

  48. avatar TiC says:

    Pardon my French, but FUCK YES!!!

    I’ll be able to leave the house with something better than a 2.95″ blade pocketknife (to abide by absurd local 3″ restrictions).

    I’m moving back to Texas next year, but I’m going to get a permit just to see them do something that offends every fiber of their stupid, “progressive” beings.

  49. avatar Aaron says:

    According to Volokh, the defendants in Richards and Baker have petitioned for a en banc hearings. Therefore it is premature to be looking for a Supreme Court review, because the issue isn’t settled in the 9th until either the 9th denies an en banc hearing, or decides an en banc hearing.

    1. avatar RLC2 says:

      Here’s that link to Volokh in WAPO late yesterday, succint and to the point as usual:
      “Goodbye Peruta, Hello Baker and Prieto”

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/12/the-ninth-circuit-and-the-right-to-carry-guns-good-bye-peruta-hello-richards-and-baker/

      For “what next” I’d defer to Chuck Michel, West Coast coordinator for lawyers on Peruta,
      whom you will find quoted in Calguns.net from time to time, when its appropriate- see post #5
      http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=1003933

      and a great resource for official docs, etc here:
      http://michellawyers.com/guncasetracker/perutavsandiego/

      And here is the NRA-IRAs page with more explanations, like en banc, links to a video explaining the case, and article in Freedom First.

      http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2014/11/california-one-step-closer-to-shall-issue!.aspx

      Dont forget to give NRA kudos for paying for top lawyers, and consider joining NRA if you are not already a member…or giving to NRA-ILA. You know what they say about talk, and what walks…$$$

      https://www.nraila.org/get-involved-locally/secure/donate.aspx

      1. avatar RLC2 says:

        oops. bad linkage in post above, sorry- NRA ILA
        http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2014/11/california-one-step-closer-to-shall-issue!.aspx?s=&st=&ps=

        And one last opinion, from Gene Hoffman, Chairman, Calguns Foundation:

        “…Odds of an en banc in Richards – 15%.
        Odds of a cert petition by Yolo County in Richards if no en banc – 99%
        SCOTUS grant? Who the heck knows at this point.

        But the right to carry a firearm in public for self defense will be the law on the west coast until SCOTUS or the en banc court tells us otherwise.”

        http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=15249935&postcount=39

        1. avatar RLC2 says:

          dang…NRA ILA webmaster call your office…
          (or maybe its TTAG…something is happening to last bits of links posted to make them inop, after cut and paste- every where else is working…)

          go here and scroll down to “California One Step Closer…”

          http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation.aspx

  50. avatar RLC2 says:

    Local ABC news reporting, updated Nov 13, 2014: including Peruta on video.

    http://www.10news.com/news/court-rules-san-diego-countys-gun-policy-is-unconstitutional-11122014

  51. avatar RLC2 says:

    And here is the local Fox affiliate:

    http://fox5sandiego.com/2014/11/12/court-rejects-californias-bid-to-revisit-gun-law/

    Kind of funny they cite Aguirre- kind of a loose screw in local politics

  52. avatar RLC2 says:

    And, just for a milestone- no changes yet at SD Sheriffs Office official website, except a note to expect changes.
    http://www.sdsheriff.net/licensing/ccw.html

  53. avatar RLC2 says:

    And here is the home town paper, “centrist-conservative” – UT San Diego,
    http://www.utsandiego.com/polls/2014/nov/guidelines-carrying-concealed-weapon-hp/results/

    but still IMHO the best ear to the ground for whats going on in “America’s Finest City” which is actually a very small town, insider wise…

    note there is a poll on the page for “is self-defense a good enough reason to apply for a concealed weapon permit” that is 2823 YES vs 383 no. Hopefully thats validation of the local citizenry wishes and Sheriff Gore will act upon it.

  54. avatar Ed says:

    Sorry you live in Marylandstan it must be like Californastan. The worst thing to happen to this state was Feinstein and Milk. Prior to her a gun was a welcome accoutrement to a person’s attire. It would be nice if it were that way again, however the only way to do so is to democratize California again. It may take a full scale invasion but would be worth the sacrificing a few liberals.

  55. avatar RLC2 says:

    PS. Went back and watched that video on the NRA-ILA link: click below.

    Peruta counsel Chuck Michel is great, makes some powerful points about he longer effort for 2A rights. “Dont expect someone outside to do it for us. ..”

    And speaking of the Gun Grabbers War on Women,

    watch the video for comments by another co-plaintiff, a young lady denied her CCW by Gore twice(!) despite being robbed once already.

    Pass it along:

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p80GW1P19eY&feature=youtu.be

  56. Am I the only one who knows the difference between a motion to intervene being denied and an appeal being denied. Harris can appeal the denial of her motion to intervene both en banc and to SCOTUS.

    She can also attack the Peruta decision through the Richards v. Prieto case. A case in which she unquestionably has standing to appeal all the way up to SCOTUS.

    1. avatar Abad says:

      Are you even an attorney?

  57. avatar rlc2 says:

    UPDATE on Peruta: Brady Bunch appealing denial of intervention…
    http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=811282&page=37

  58. avatar IAB2 says:

    Peruta case is back in holding pattern…

    9th just announced the parties must respond to Harris request for appeal of intervention denial, in 21 days.
    and…
    One judge has requested, sua sponte, to rehear the entire case…responses due to that in 21 days.

    http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=893452

  59. The punishment for rape in California is severe and your future is too important to risk. Let the attorneys at Wallin & Klarich protect you. Call today. https://www.wklaw.com/rape-sentencing-and-punishment-pc-261/

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