calgunlaws.com has posted San Diego County Sheriff Bill Gore’s press release announcing that he won’t ask the Ninth Circuit court of appeals for an en banc review of the recent Peruta decision. That’s the recent ruling by a three-judge panel finding that – shockingly – the Second Amendment RKBA actually extends outside the home. Even in the Golden State. Gore justifies his sidestepping a very hot political potato thusly: “The legislature certainly has the power to amend California’s firearm carry process, and the Ninth Circuit has the ability to bring its own motion to rehear the decision of the three member panel en banc. However, while the court’s decision clearly involves a question of exceptional importance, and conflicts with decisions of other United States Courts of Appeals, the opinion provides clear guidance in the context of issuing CCWs in California.” This likely isn’t over. As always, watch this space. [h/t DrVino]
Home Gun Control BREAKING: San Diego Sheriff Won’t Seek En Banc Decision on Peruta
All I want to know is when can I walk into the Alameda County Sheriffs office, fill out the forms and pay the fees and walk out with a ccw?
In six years, you’ll have constitutional carry, even of an unmodified semi-auto AK with 30 round mag – full-auto if you’ve the NFA stamp.
Dominos, gentlemen. Dominos.
Well, a bloke can dream, can’t he? In ’87, whoddathunk that within six years Communism would be outlawed in Russia?
In 87 who’d a thunk that most of America would be shall issue? Who’d a thunk that Illinois and CA both would have been B slapped by the federal courts for their gun laws?
We may have constitutional carry soon. One court case is all it takes. Course that would phuck with the Walter Mitty types that keep trying to drum up a civil war. Oh well, sucks to be them.
Or we may not have Constitutional Carry – Obama replacing ONE conservative SCOTUS justice is all it would take.
Walter – keep dreaming. Every branch of the U.S. military spends lots of time and money developing contingency plans for highly unlikely scenarios, just in case they are needed. Better to have drilled it in advance than have to make it up on the fly.
There was one anonymous poster on rec.guns back in the mid-90’s who predicted after the legislative successes of 1994 to 1996 that most all of the US would be shall-issue by 2010. He was right.
I wish I knew his name, because it was one of the most ballsy predictions I’d ever seen around guns.
In ’87 who would’ve thought we’d have a communist in the White House in 2008?
Having literally just finished re-reading their process documents, I’m now worried about their background check process. I do NOT want them calling former or current employers and disclosing that I am applying for a carry license.
I’m working as an independent consultant right now, but who’s to say that they wouldn’t call up one of my clients and freak them out with talk about how I want to carry a gun?
Next Challenge. All they need is a background check to determine our criminal status and if we have criminal mental health issues. Nothing more is need.
@jwm Waiting for San Mateo County myself…
Im shopping for holsters this weekend.
Usually, a decision not to appeal like this is due to the fear that the case could go to the Supremes, resulting in a ruling that could apply nationwide. The anti-constitution crowd is deathly afraid that the USSC could re-assert the RTKBA nationwide.
The east coast has several cases nibbling at the same issues just waiting for a chance…
I’ve heard that the petition for cert in Drake v. New Jersey was on conference calendar for today. I did not find any indication that the court has yet ruled on that petition–and if the Ninth does not itself grant en banc (it has another week to do so I think), there is a good chance that Drake may get cert, as it raises the same “may issue” issue as Peruta.
This just solidifies the circuit split, and the petition for cert in the 3d Circuit case is up for consideration. Not sure if this is the motivating factor here. I suspect that local politics are a bigger factor.
Yeah as former DC mayor Adrian Fenty how that works out. He had people begging him not to appeal Heller, but he was convinced that he would win if he just appealed it high enough.
And the importance of Heller was that at long last we got the “individual” vs. “collective” right settled. Every judicial victory since has been built upon this.
It almost makes me wish that a pro 2nd amendment person would pretend to be an anti so they could drive a law suit to the supreme court.
Make that “Yeah ASK former DC mayor…”
So, the antis in Sacramento folded and left the table.
Good news is that the ruling will stand. The bad news is it’ll take another lawsuit before they’ll obey it.
Cue the “Heller Shuffle” where CA anti carry authorities defy the order until a future case forces them to obey. They could also do the right thing and start issuing carry permits, but I’m not drunk enough to believe that.
Gore seems to be bowing out, but cueing the Democrat State Legislature to toughen CCW issuance qualifications.
Orange and Ventura have already folded. SD and LA have both announced they’ll hold onto “self defense” applications until Peruta is finalized (mandate issued) or stayed/reheard/pushed up to SCOTUS.
My appointment with OC Sheriff’s Dept. is May 27, the earliest they had available.
It seems like the biggest problems are going to come from Bay Area counties.
As much as I would hate to say this, OC Sheriff Hutchens will NOT approve “Self-Defense” as sufficient good cause until she’s forced to. The OCSD will certainly accept your application, but don’t expect approval. The updated information on their website does NOT say that they’ll *approve* the application, only that they’ll *accept* it. She’ll wait until there’s a final, in-force ruling before she changes any actual practices there.
It never is over, is it, “Sheriff”?
Punk ass coward!!!!
So, what are the CA ccw requirements, sans special need required for may issue
If you read the presser, you’ll see the new rules have not yet been codified.
Mumble, mumble, firstborn, mumble, mumble, left nut, mumble…
It used to be “first born”, maybe now, not so much. They may still require a left nut, though; without one, you’re screwed, which you may be anyway.
The requirements are supposed to be set by state statute, but various counties have added extra, and probably illegal requirements. The statute says that there is a max fee, a required course of training of no more than 16 hours (unless the Sheriff requires all applicants to take the 24 hour post cert from a local community college), a discretionary mental health exam by the same examiner as used to evaluate police officers (fee not to exceed $150). Further, there must be a showing of “good cause” (which now equals self defense) and the applicant must be of “good moral character”. How the latter is established no one knows, but it will most certainly be the next battleground. A member of CalGuns who has an FFL reported that he was denied by LASD for lack of good moral character just today.
Illegal requirements that have been imposed include required letters of reference (and perhaps follow up interviews by the SO of those providing such letters), $1 million or more in liability coverage that also names the sheriff, a signed hold harmless agreement for issuance naming the sheriff and agreeing to defend and indemnify (by the way, the sheriff is statutorily immune from any liability for his decision to issue or deny any permit), and a range qualification separate and apart from the training requirement. Some sheriffs require applicants to fill out an extensive questionnaire with minute details of one’s history–despite the fact that the state statute says that no document or application or fee may be required EXCEPT for the state mandated form and statutory fees.
Some speculate that the decision of the Orange County Sheriff to ‘loosen’ her requirement to ‘shall issue’ may have been the writing on the wall.
Others speculate that the tightly written opinion, the fact that the CA9th is the most overturned circuit in the country, and the Sheriffs re-election in 4 months were the determining factors.
That’s right, and Gore really doesn’t have such a big stake in this fight. Sure, he’d like to maintain the currently more restrictive policy, but he’s got bigger fish to fry, so to speak, plus cost to benefit probably doesn’t pencil out well at this point.
Yes, there is that. Now let’s see how those first applications go…
Illinois having conceal carry and now this?! Even though it’s still a uphill battle i’ll take this little victory.
Every win is ground regained. Press on…
This court stuff is confusing. So can I open carry down Santa Monica Boulevard, or what?
Give that a try and let us know how it goes.
At least I won’t be cold as I’m getting tackled and hogtied.
someone with more knowledge than I please explain what this means. does it mean every county will be shall issue? if so how soon will that be implemented?
I don’t get it, either. Kind of seems like he’s punting, here ; “However, while the court’s decision clearly involves a question of exceptional importance, and conflicts with decisions of other United States Courts of Appeals, the opinion provides clear guidance in the context of issuing CCWs in California.” He won’t fight it now, but is crossing his fingers that it will be overturned?
Technically, the case decision is binding only on San Diego, and each issuing agency could theoretically continue its policy of denial. However, every federal court in California is bound by the decision, and will undoubtedly follow it if an action is filed. Thus, for practical purposes, yes, it applies all across the state. But also remember that most of the rural counties accepted self defense as good cause already, so nothing will change for them. As noted above, the “no issue” counties will be trying to find some other way–lack of good moral character being the most obvious ploy, either that or legislative change–to deny.
One thing about legislative changes to the existing statute. First, the court did not invalidate the California statute, it simply mandated a definition of “good cause.” Second, today was the last day for submitting a bill in this legislative session. (On the other hand, there are a few “placeholder” bills floating around that could be used as a mechanism for passage of a revised law).
Good Moral Character. Is that anything like a literacy test for the right to vote? It’s not up to the individual to prove anything. We are supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
If you run me thru your system and I don’t come back as prohibited, issue the permit.
One thing to keep in mind – one of the judges on the 9th Circuit Court could himself ask for an En Banc hearing. So it’s not over until the deadline for that runs out, which is March 6th.
IANAL, but that seems like a nice way for a judge who doesn’t like being out-voted to get around an opinion issued by the others and roll the dice again, hoping to get “better” judges the second time around.
Should surprise anyone… they have the long game in mind; If they appeal, it would undoubtedly make its way to SCOTUS who would then have several different federal districts ruling differently on the matter, which would put all that much more pressure on SCOTUS to take it up and potentially leveling a HUGE blow to the antis.
So, instead of being set back nationally, they are accepting being set back just in the 9th.
The good sheriff is saying his re-election is more important and the ghost gun crew in sacremento need to tighten the law. He is a coward
He’s pragmatic. We could do a lot worse. IMO, he’s low key and an effective leader and administrator for the SDSO.
Because of those attributes, he won’t have any trouble with re-election.
Perhaps. I think it would have been very pragmatic of him to put in place “shall issue” policies before now. Other than offending the power structure in the other urban California counties, where was the downside?
The existing SDSO CCW issue policies for “self defense” have been in place for decades; at least since feisty John Duffy’s tenure as Sheriff in the 70’s. What would be Gore’s motivation for and benefit from changing a long standing policy without compelling reason such as the decision by the 9th Circuit. There would have been no up side for him either politically or operationally, and plenty of down side.
Though he would have gained popularity amongst law abiding San Diego gun owners wanting to conceal carry, that’s not much upside in the big picture.
The opinion does provide clear guidance. Is San Diego’s Sheriff just going to ignore it? Their previous statement seems to say they are just going to ignore it and continue not to issue carry permits even though self defense has been deemed a good cause for issuance.
From the Sheriff’s press release:
“Members of the public wishing to obtain a CCW 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. Should the decision of the Ninth Circuit become final, the Sheriff’s Department will begin to issue CCWs in situations where the applicant has met all other lawful qualifications and has requested a CCW for purposes of self-defense.”
If the Sheriff is not pressing for appeal to an en banc panel, and the county does not press for an en banc appeal, which seems unlikely, then we are left with the Ninth deciding to go for en banc on its own, which could happen. If that does not happen, then who would have standing to appeal to the Supreme Court, other than the Sheriff or the County? If no one appeals to the Supreme Court, and they do not chose to hear another case on “bearing arms outside the home” soon, then it seems to me that this decision will stand for a while.
The enormous upside for second amendment supporters is that very large numbers of Californians will apply for CCW permits, Hawaii residents will start applying there, and if enough are granted permits…. the process becomes extremely hard to reverse. California has 39 million residents. It is the state with the largest population. It is an awfully big domino to try to resurrect.
Interesting, perhaps prescient insight Dean, and one I think is spot on. Whether it’s liberty or entitlement it is very difficult to ‘put the genie back in the bottle’, so to speak, once it’s been let out.
The formula from the leftist playbook suggests something like one a critical mass has been reached, that is, enough people have adopted an entitlement, attempts at taking it away again are politically inexpedient and publicly unpopular and thus there is seldom cause or action to reverse them.
Applying the same model to the exercise of a right might not make for an accurate direct translation, but my substituting what I think is at the core of this phenomena it develops a bit like this:
There will still be those who rail against the exercise of the right but they will have lost much legitimacy given that the judiciary has already ruled, and that, serving as a catalyst will likely cause the media and organized anti groups exhaust their views/members respectively in the early days before the ruling has any real impact on the ground. Then, inexorably and will little in the way of organization an increasingly significant number of citizens will quietly take advantage of their newfound liberty and begin exercising the right.
In time (when nothing bad happens and the hysterical reports in the media give way to a humdrum of reports on how many CCW permit holders there are (and nothing happened) and the wild predictions of the anti groups are quietly shown to have been groundless, the conversation begins to change. Just as once it was considered a shameful condition to be on public assistance but much less so today, owning and carrying guns will begin to lose it’s stigma in various ways among myriad parts of the affected society. (Even here in Ohio there was a transitional period when shall issue permit carry was passed and there were those who were mostly neutral who honestly asked ‘why carry a gun’, it may take longer in California, but it is inevitable if the continual easing of the permitting system encourages increasing numbers of citizens to exercise their rights.)
At some point, having a CCW permit or a concealed handgun will be as passé in large swaths of California as it is over much of the rest of the country and the idea of going back will seem largely a non-issue, not worth fighting about, and having little in the way of social utility to start with. Politicians will find it increasingly difficult to use gun control as a hot button issue just as the media will have an ever more difficult time inciting fear with irresponsible misinformation about the result of armed citizens being amongst the populace.
Ours, especially in places like California, is very much a battle of momentum. If you have it and maintain it even only for a while, you change the game and have the antis facing up the hill while we sit atop it to prevent their resurgence. Fortunately for us, it’s often the case than when the antis are most ascendant they have the effect of compressing us like a spring, only to find that when we finally cannot be compressed any further we uncoil with such momentum that they (being largely ‘fake’ groups to begin with and having nothing of substance to offer socially, culturally, practically or even factually) are then driven back beyond where they started, to the bottom of the hill so to speak.
While for now at least we remain a finitely compressible spring the antis are more akin to a basket of gravel. In aggregate they can press us down but they tend to scatter after being thrown off. I don’t know many gun owners who aren’t apt to continue their commitment to liberty nor many antis who are apt to keep trying in the face of it being socially unpopular. For most of them, not the lunatic true believers or the arguably malignant and dishonest leaders of their ‘movement’ this is more a game than a deep seated belief system, and that is why they lose cohesion so easily when rebuffed, to drift on to railing about the environment or big agri or whatever the cause du jure is for wanna-be social activists and semi-professional victims. While the POTG are largely happy to share with you why they like guns, even if you don’t like guns, antis aren’t big on talking about the topic to anyone who doesn’t agree with them. Thus the fewer people they perceive to be in at least tacit agreement the less they’ll talk about it until they realize their position is largely unpopular and don’t talk about it all. I’d go as far as to wager that for every gun owner one could convert into a full fledged anti 1000 antis could be converted to at least temporary supporters of the RKBA. It would simply be a matter of altering their social group affiliation (say, move them to a conservative rural county in a gun rights state and get them involved in local civil and social organizations, in a year many would be members of the local gun rights group). Change the way the wind blows and the change the way the low information people view their world. It’s as simple as that.
Californians, you may finally be able to give up your slingshots and get some REAL guns. The country is rooting for you!
With the Democrat politicos occupying the State Legislature, DOJ, and other local political offices, I wouldn’t get rid of the sling shots just yet.
These antis always have something else up their sleeve just for fun; they are vicious and relentless at infringing and impeding the gun rights of honest, law abiding citizens. We occupy the whipping posts my friend; the actual bad actor criminals don’t obey or care, so they get a pass until they eventually get caught in a real, true crime.
I’m sorry but the extreme amount of firepower you speak of will be falling off the department of injustice’s approved roster at the end of the month.
Yeah but people are getting a good feeling about the handgun roster lawsuit as well. We should have a ruling by the start of summer.
That’s good news, but I wish SCOTUS would have taken up the case and clearly defined “May issue / Just cause” as a violation of the 2nd.
Still, this is potentially a huge step forward. I look forward to an influx of CA CCW.
I think Sheriff Gore is being very careful here- if you look at the org chart for the Board of Supervisors, the Sheriffs office is under the Board and its admin-
yet the Sheriff is an elected official, as is Bonnie Dumanis, the current District Attorney for San Diego County.
Theres no PR from the Board as of this writing, and nothing from the DC’s office, either. I have no idea how the restrictions on CCW were set in first place, and there doesnt seem to be a lot of talk about that, not surprisingly, as no one wants to be pointing fingers here on that loss, especially when its such a black eye for Progressives nationally as well as for AG Kamala Harris in CA.
San Diego is a funny town – a small town in many ways in spite of being something like 6th largest metro area if you count all the suburbs, and the Sheriff serves 9 of those municipalities as contract law enforcement, so he serves multiple masters and he has a big job to do- runs the jails too, and Jerry Brown was forced to dump something like 10,000 prisoners on the counties not too long ago due to a judges ruling on overcrowding in state prisons. San Diego City council took a turn to the left about 4-5 years ago, partly due to the huge black eye the City got for the pension crisis, and the flaccid leadership of the last repub mayor. The City shifted to a strong mayor model, and Jerry Sanders, the Chief of SDPD who ran as Mayor when he retired from law enforcement, as a moderate republican, did a great job steering the city back on the tracks, yet the local Dems hustled enough LIV San Diego urban and Latino voters to elect the now discredited, but then respected Dem Congressman Bob Filner formerly from that hispanic dominated district, and if you read back aways- you will see the Progressives who run the Democratic Party locally, “have been working 25 years to enact their agenda”, per a quote to that effect by Chairwomanperson Busby, who justified keeping Filthy Filner in power at first- in spite of warnings from senior women in the dem party years earlier about his history of groping.
The San Diego Democratic Party Club or whatever they call it, has “a lot of ‘splainin to do, Lucy”, for some pretty shady stuff lately:
which sort of mirrors whats going on nationally, for anyone paying attention.
Like I said, I dont live in San Diego, so I dont claim any inside baseball knowledge. But San Diego County has always been conservative, even if every one pretends “it doesnt matter and we all get along on the Board”. So I am not suprised the Sheriff got away with a typical management LEO approach to guns “in the hands of citizens- ie, you dont need it cuz thats dangerous for the cops…”
But if you look at the history of the Peruta case, the SD County Attorneys case was shaky at best, and the weak reed it depended upon, got cut out beneath them by the over-reaction of doofus CA Dems in the legislature, to the LSM kerfluffle to a bunch of old farts in Starbucks sitting around OWB,
to jam thru a law banning OC, after the first ruling in court.
And proof of the weak case could be gotten by going to Calguns forums for Dec 12 2012 posts on the orals before the 9th and read some of the more erudite commentary, to realize the same: the San Diego DAs counsel was pretty pathetic.
Now, why would the District Attorney of San Diego put up a weak case, in CA. Especially if she Bonnie Dumanis is a nominal Republican? That is a very good question. Notice that her office and Kamela Harris’s filed amicus curae on the side of DC, in the Heller case, for one indication of how the wind was blowing last election.
Now the wind is blowing the other direction, given the new Mayor of San Diego is a Republican, chosen by voters to replace dem bob filner, and Mr Faulconer the moderate repub won with a sizeable majority despite two to one spending against him, by unions and unprecedented out of town money from national dems…and
Hopefully, the adults in the sandbox at the Board of Supervisors realize they dont need to waste any more of the taxpayers good money, in tough economic times especially, or fail to supervise our public servants, on obvious 2A rights which are core conservative values, when those same high earners are leaving the state and county in droves…for places like AZ and TX.
Both Sheriff Gore, and District Attorney Dumanis need to be re-elected here again in 2014, so they have some tap-dancing to do, in order to find a way to get more support than they had from the unions and casinos who backed the Sheriff and the Progressive and LGBT community who supported the DA last time, as this is bad juju that in spite of their reputed competence, and the otherwise good reputations of their respective departments in the law enforcement community, reflects poorly on their professional judgement.
It will be interesting to see who runs against them.
Thanks for that; a very accurate summation of greater San Diego county government and politics.
The county supervisor in my district released a statement that she supports a citizens right to carry a firearm for self defense. I think the county sups probably had words for the sheriff about ending this lawsuit.
Would that be Diane Jacobs?
March 6th is the date. Some legal minds over on Calguns have stated that they doubt a 9th Circuit judge who was not on the ruling will be able to convince the entire 9th to review this case as it cites Heller and is supposedly a pretty airtight case.
There will undoubtedly be lawsuits for the foot draggers in certain counties but this is incredible news. Assuming we don’t get a new judgement from the 9th, pigs will be flying and hell will be freezing over in about two weeks. Amazing. As a lifelong Californian, I truly never thought this day would come. Thank you NRA, Edward Peruta and Michel & Associates for seeing this through!
All true. One judge can call for en banc, and then it is put up for a vote. majority vote required to grant the request. And the decision is beautifully written and on solid legal ground. The dissent is a weak little whine.
Ah, so it’s judges that weren’t involved in the opinion that can call for en banc, not one of the original three. Clears up my question above.
Much appreciation (and $$$) out to the folks in the trenches.
According to an article in LA Times, “… if there is to be an appeal to the ruling of a three-judge panel, it will have to come from the state attorney general or another judge on the appeals court, said James Chapin, senior deputy county counsel for San Diego County.”
One would think Hawaii AG would then also have standing to appeal, and going to shall issue would be an even bigger culture shock there than in CA.
I may not be the sharpest legal mind, but I do not see how the State AG would have standing, let alone Hawaii.
State AGs in general did not have standing in Heller, though they could submit amica briefs. This ruling does not change state law one bit. It simply changes the way that some counties interpret the law.
Similarly, it changes the way that the law may be interpreted in Hawaii, but you could reasonably argue that Heller did the same, and Hawaii did not have standing for Heller.
Perhaps a real lawyer could opine on who would have standing to appeal the case to the Supreme Court.
Dean, I agree- I’m not reading anywhere that the State AG, Ms Harris, has standing on Peruta, either. There are two other cases already heard by the 9th, that might have included the State- I’d have to go back and look or you could check Calguns to find out more.
My guess is a misquote or mis-characterization by LA Slimes reporter, which would be my default position on ANYTHING coming from the StateRunMedia.
My take is the San Diego County District Attorney, Ms Dumanis, has gotten the word that the County Board of Supervisors doesnt want to waste the millions of dollars to appeal.
As I understand it- (and please any lawyers practicing or familiar with CA process correct me)
ANY judge of the 30+ or serving the 9th, can appeal for “en banc” and the clock is ticking on the deadline for that- 60 days I think. So the SD County attorney is simply saying – we at the County are not pursuing it, without putting the State on the hook, for or against.
And that seems smart, to me.
Now, if one liberal judge DOES request en banc, then it starts another clock ticking for something like 6 months, at which time Judge Kosinski, the Chief, and ten others randomly chosen, have to consider it, and decide if its to be ruled upon.
Someone else here has posted a link on those rules, and a summary of how many en banc rulings have succeeded historically. I dont have the legal background to speculate- but if you go read Volokh on WAPO, he doesnt make a guess either- could go either way- we have seen plenty of examples of the Progressive left ignoring the will of the voters state and nationally, even to the point of gross abuse of executive privilege, and some say- lying to the people.
If no one DOES request en banc, then since its already been reversed and remanded to the lower court, that means Sheriff Gore will have to have the admin rules in place, that allow for good cause to include self-defense.
As I recall- the other requirements were fairly reasonable for CCW- not as easy as Idaho or AZ for example as those are very different populations and politics, but considering CA as a whole, and what I have been able to parse from descriptions of the process, it doesnt come across as dragging heels, just careful documentation.
We’ll see as the final process is announced in 60 days though.
Me I am not getting worked up about it- if I were to request CCW I have some training to do anyway, thats more picky than the minimum, just to be responsible to my own standard- so I can spend my time doing that right now.
If I were going to place a bet- it will go the Supreme Court, and that would be a good thing, as this is a very solid judgement- read what Ralph has posted, and one hopes will lead to a solid decision at the Supremes. I can wait until 2016 for that. And btw- thats why you see these desperate “talking point memos” being circulated by the various progressive orgs and thinktanks and echoed by their puppets in the SRM about “oh, the constitution is out of date, the 2A doesnt mean this…” good luck with that is all I can say.
My two cents and YMMV.
Absolutely- many thanks to Mr Michel, and to former United States Solicitor General Paul Clement,
who I believe Volokh at WAPO called perhaps the foremost constitional lawyer today.
The point being to remind ourselves that the key to this win was careful and patient preparation of the ground for a long-term strategy, building on precedent, and tapping resources, like the NRA on Peruta and the SAF on Richards, and coordinating arguments where relevant between them.
So a quiet, powerful team effort…wins the play and the next first down, and moves the ball down the field.
My point being- this is high-stakes chess, and the effort to hire talent, and get out the word, and run other key efforts along the way here in CA, grass roots up – like the Sunshine initiative on CCW best practices, which supports the next step- how to make it easy politically for all 58 Sheriffs to set common-sense statewide policy for CCW, is not cheap.
As California goes, so goes the Nation.
“I felt a great disturbance among the insular progressives, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly bitch slapped by Liberty. I fear something terrible has happened.” ~ Darth Feinstein
one of those comments that really make me wish we had a “like” button
Can this 9th ruling be used/cited in shall issue cases in other circuit cases before it gets to the USSC? -not the ruling having weight but rather the findings in the case.
Thats a good question and I think some of the answer is here-
There is another layer in the 3D chess game, that all these 2A cases are part of-
and have no doubt that the left is working their angles furiously-
For example, one reason it MIGHT not go to en banc, just like the San Diego County DA might NOT want to appeal to Supreme Court, is because then it can be cited as certiorari, and the Supremes would have to look to another case, for the 2A issue, perhaps one not so strong as Peruta- like Filko.
I believe this is why the Sheriff of Sacramento settled, for example, vs have that go on the books as a decision against the anti-gunners.
But I could be wrong and thank you for any lawyers that might explain it better.
I can’t believe the timing of this ruling. I am in LA for work and a transfer here is a distinct possibility. Yeah, I know CA is still more restrictive than just about any other state in the union even with this great news…except the one I’m from (NY). FUAC ! Maybe a move here is a good choice.
Unfortunately the application process in Orange County requires an interview with a member of the CCW licensing unit. I called this morning and was able to get the first available appointment which was in mid June. They may be required to issue the permits now but they’ll take their time doing it.
Ya’ll know what’s really ironic about these kinds of results; the stupid grabbers continue to deceptively push untenable positions and bring their losses on themselves.
yep! ya know why? because they are stupid.
Mina, heh- I know that was tongue-in-cheek,
and dont take this as a slap, or anything like it-
more of a sign of RESPECT for your frank opinions here-
So, I wonder if this is a good time to insert this – and your thoughts in turn:
We POTG need to be resolute, and wise, and persistent in advancing the TTAG, particularly now, with this win, as its just one key battle in the long culture war,
for as more and more of the “silent majority” as it was once called a couple decades ago, are looking around for information- including here, they will be attracted to that discussion on facts, and well informed experienced opinion.
Thats a rare commodity on most other blogs or news sites, IMHO, and at least half the reason I come back here to spend my valuable reading time, vs some of the other gun-sites on line, or some of the political blogs, that get a LOT of comments, that are mostly juvenile, or free of useful factual content, sadly.
I’ve been a news junkie for years, and I also sense from the tone and content including comments at places like WAPO, NYT, HuffPO, that some who are independent thinkers are asking questions that would have been unPC just a year ago, and others are pitching in – asking and responding,
and even more good news- its not a wave, but a ripple maybe, like the first sign of the tide changing,
because it comes across not as debate, but rather a great rage in response- as if the true believers either have been so brain-washed, that they dont have the ability to even consider the blasphemy, or if they do understand- the cynical few who think they can “shape the narrative” Cass Sunstein call your office, are pretty quiet, or if not, they are blowing it- Ms Watts for Bloomie, as our favorite example.
So that works for us too, especially if we welcome questions and opinions, and keep our own discourse an example of respectful discourse on the facts, and The Truth About Guns.
PS: MINA, what was that other site you mentioned posting to awhile back- that would be a good place to seed ideas and links back to TTAG.
Heres why – I think its time to do our part to step it up- we 2A rights believers have waged a very good defense, post Sandy Hook, and the timing is right to continue the momentum, as an Army of Davids (h/t Instapundit) to spread the facts further.
A reactive strategy would be to wait for people to show up- a proactive strategy would be to reach out and drop links into the pool of receptive minds, to send them back to sources of good info, like TTAG and others.
PM me Mina, if you can on more ideas for the PUA places too, in the Forum link above- I am RLC2 there also, and that includes anyone else who might want to drop some ideas into the places they visit – we have a very solid base of surveys and facts that are a resource all by themselves that should be promulgated in a wider circle, as a resource. That is going to bring inquiring minds back here.
Sorry to go OT here, and IMHO probably better done off the radar screen of the main site.
“However, while the court’s decision clearly involves a question of exceptional importance, and conflicts with decisions of other United States Courts of Appeals, the opinion provides clear guidance in the context of issuing CCWs in California.”
Translation: “We can’t negate your Constitutional Right in that way any more, but there’s lots more ways we can do so. Look: We’ll be just like Chicago in court!”
Chicago/IL did the same opossum move: they laid there and took it and didn’t oppose the court.
Remains to be seen how it will all play out once actual, real life citizens start carrying outside their homes.
I hope to be one, come March!
Keep watching DC. Not the Gummint, the city. That’s the Imperial Fortress. Remember, Congress’ Little Plantation on the Potomac was the first to get slapped.
I agree and IMHO thats why we are seeing a LOT of fuss on who gets nominated vs who the Senate actually appoints in that key district court.
This is great.
Congrats my Cali brethren.
Lets hope “stet”.
NOTHING IS GOING TO CHANGE AND NO FLOOD OF PERMITS WILL HAPPEN…..and this is why.
Ca Penal Code Section 12050
12050. (a) (1) (A) The sheriff of a county, upon proof that the person applying is of good moral character, that good cause exists for the issuance, and that the person applying satisfies any one of the conditions specified in subparagraph (D) and has completed a course of training as described in subparagraph (E), may issue to that person a license to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person in either one of the following formats:
The Subsections to this article address other issues but
Paragraph A is the guiding directive. The KEY word in this
paragraph is the word “MAY”….the code says the chief LEO
“MAY” issue a permit. It does not say “SHALL”. All the
9th circus courts ruling did was to delete the phrase regarding “good cause” from this code. It does not change
the word “MAY” to “SHALL”. Only the legislature can make that change. Unless and until such a change IS made, and that is VERY unlikely California remains a “MAY ISSUE” state not a “SHALL ISSUE” state. That means that the decision to issue or not issue is at the SOLE discretion of
the chief LEO involved. The recent court decision ONLY means that said LEO may not use the phrase regarding “good
cause” as a reason to refuse to issue. He can still refuse
That is an oversimplification though. While technically accurate, the ruling clearly defines the right to bear arms for an individual. While CA is still a “may” issue State, the Sheriff cannot deny you a right. The way the law is written, the State pushes the responsibility to the sheriff, but the sheriffs’ hands are now tied. If they deny an otherwise qualified citizen from carrying, they risk federal prosecution under civil rights violations. This is an offense they would be personally liable for, not something the sheriff’s office or county would take the heat on. No sheriff is going to risk that so they will issue. Even if some risk it, after the first one is successfully prosecuted they will all fall in line.
The interesting thing will be to see what the legislature does. They are bound by this ruling to. Any barrier they put up will be struck down, so they have to figure out how they can let people carry. They need to either allow loaded open carry after banning it just a few years ago, in which case the CCW law can stay the same and revert to old practices, or, they will need to streamline the CCW process and officially go Shall issue, or they will lose lawsuit after lawsuit over fees, training requirements, good morale character, simple processing delays and any other requirement that delays the right to carry. A right delayed is a right denied, and while they can require a license, it needs to be issued in a timely manner at minimal cost.
Furthermore, the right to carry is a federal right, so it can not be denied to non CA residents. Reciprocity will have to be allowed or expect the lawsuit and a quick win with a summary judgment referencing this case.
The law states “may”…..that is ALL the sheriff needs to know. IF he gives a reason that reason could be used as a basis for legal action to force the issue. However if he merely denies the application without comment there is at this point in time no basis to appeal on. The law says “may” and that is what it means.
I have no doubt there will be a LOT of further legal wrangling over this issue and it MIGHT MAYBE EVENTUALLY be settled in a fashion that causes Kali to essentially act like the majority of the other states.
That point in time is stll a long way off. Till then it will remain business as usual with CCW permits being
routinely denied. The only change is there will no longer be a reason given for that denial.
The ruling says keep and bear are both rights. How do you stand before a judge and say we determined this guy can keep but not bear. The courts are going to allow regulation despite “shall not be infringed,” but even the courts will have a hard time saying you can have a different metric for the rights individually. If you own a gun you can carry it, and this lawsuit is the cornerstone to getting that settled.