Breaking news: Ninth Circuit Rules California May Issue Unconstituional

Status
Not open for further replies.
Irrelevant to the appeal, good point. Irrelevant totally? Far from it. Great to see movement in policy as a result of the ruling.
 
gc70 said:
Whatever Orange County does is irrelevant; Orange County was not a party to the case.
Click to expand...

:confused::scrutiny:



Gaiudo said:
Irrelevant to the appeal, good point. Irrelevant totally? Far from it. Great to see movement in policy as a result of the ruling.
Click to expand...

Yea... Gaiudo understands.

To say ' irrelevant totally' would be like saying the whole rest of the 9th Circuit is irrelevant because they weren't party to the case; that would be dismissing the authority of the 9th Circuit.

The 9th Circuit ruled on the case... not the "San Diego Circuit". :rolleyes:
 
danez71 said:
But I'm wondering if there is a hint of no appeal since OC Sheriff Dept is already complying.
Click to expand...

Whatever Orange County does is irrelevant to whether Peruta is appealed because Orange County was not a party to the case.

Better?
 
Last edited:
gc70 said:
Whatever Orange County does is irrelevant to whether Peruta is appealed because Orange County was not a party to the case.

Better?
Click to expand...

Sure.I guess.

I wasn't trying to nitpick.... I guess I didn't/don't understand because I didn't suggest that they did.

I was wondering if by Orange County changing their rules, if that might hint that San Diego may not appeal.

IOW, why change if San Diego is going to appeal? If they wanted to change their policy regardless of Peruta, they could have done so a long time ago.
 
OC County and the Sheriff are being sued in another suit for similar reasons. I believe the case is called McCay vs Hutchins. It was stayed pending the outcome of Peruta and a couple of other carry cases working their way through the district courts covering CA. It's possible OC is hedging its bets in case an appeal is not called by SD. But notice that in the news release that if Peruta is stayed, OC will go back to its original policy.
 
Just imagine the swingin' swerlin' turmoil that will take place when N.J. gets "shall issue" carry. There will have to be a lot of educational suits going on for the first year or so if things are true to form.
 
San Diego Sheriff says SD will not appeal Peruta.
Click to expand...

A victory of sorts. At least a battle won. As long as the ruling stands unchallenged it increases the split at the circuit level and places pressure on SCOTUS to take up the issue sooner rather than later.
 
Sounds like CA is afraid now.

Afraid they'll lose the revenue stream of permit fees, renewal fees, listing weapons for CCP etc etc etc

IOW.... Afraid they'll lose more control.

The decision by Sheriff Gore not to appeal is likely to stand because anti-gun jurisdictions don’t want the Supreme Court to weigh in on carry rights and stop all “may issue” state laws.
Click to expand...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/21/san-diego-wont-appeal-9th-circuit-on-concealed-car/



I thought that since Orange County was changing their policy that it might be a hint of no appeal to en banc.
 
Last edited:
Via David Kopen of Volokh Conspiracy:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ircuit-en-banc-in-peruta-right-to-carry-case/
Assuming that there is no certiorari petition in Peruta, and no sua sponte en banc, things will continue as usual in the California counties that were already issuing carry permits in compliance with the principles that the Second Amendment includes the right to bear arms. Other counties–such as Los Angeles, Orange, and San Francisco–will have to follow San Diego’s lead and begin issuing permits to ordinary, law-abiding citizens who pass the requisite background checks and safety training requirements.
Click to expand...

He goes on to address Guam and Hawaii as potentially involved as well.
 
steve4102 said:
How about the CA AG, can she call for a full court review?

http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_6407/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=ajKrcy0B&src=cat&detailindex=11

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/...d-guns-20140221,0,2138479.story#axzz2u1SO0xq7
Click to expand...
She can ask the court to step in for a full hearing, but the state has no standing in this. The state was not sued. The lawsuit addressed only the policy of not accepting "self defense" as good cause.

So, really, this doesn't force any county other than SD to do anything, but it does mean that other counties should comply, and if they don't, they can be sued, and the lower courts are supposed to go with the appeals court decision.

Could be interesting if any other counties decide to force people to sue them so they can try to get a different decision from another panel on the 9th, but I don't see that happening.
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ircuit-en-banc-in-peruta-right-to-carry-case/

Davis Kopel, "San Diego Sheriff will not seek 9th Circuit en banc in Peruta right to carry case", Volokh Conspiracy blog, Washington Post, 21 Feb 2014.

San Diego County Sheriff’s Office press release announcing SDCSO won't seek en banc review (by all 9th circuit judges) of Peruta decision by a three judge panel (2-1) holding may-issue unconstitutional.

.... As I detailed in a post last week, Peruta requires that the exercise of the Second Amendment right to carry a licensed firearm for lawful self-defense be considered “good cause” under the California statute providing for the issuance of concealed carry permits.

The press release is scrupulously silent about the possibility of filing a petition for a writ of certiorari. The deadline for filing such a petition is 90 days from the entry of judgment, which was February 14 in the Peruta case. Supreme Court Rule 13.1 ....
Click to expand...

IIRC "writ of certiorari" means appeal to the US Supreme Court.

As long as Peruta is upheld, 0% of the US population lives in a State where there is "may issue" or "no issue" on carry permits. In 1986, 91% of the US population lived in States where "may issue" or "no issue" applied to right-to-carry. (Some cities are still no issue or defacto no issue under restrictive may issue laws.)
 
ChaoSS said:
She can ask the court to step in for a full hearing, but the state has no standing in this. The state was not sued. The lawsuit addressed only the policy of not accepting "self defense" as good cause.

So, really, this doesn't force any county other than SD to do anything, but it does mean that other counties should comply, and if they don't, they can be sued, and the lower courts are supposed to go with the appeals court decision.

Could be interesting if any other counties decide to force people to sue them so they can try to get a different decision from another panel on the 9th, but I don't see that happening.
Click to expand...

I don't see that happening either. If it does, LA and SF are the 2 most likely with SF having a slight lead IMO as they are the most 'progressive'.


CA doesn't want to keep losing in court. It undermines their 'image'.
 
We should not discount the strategic importance of any decision that would push Peruta closer to the Supreme Court. The other "may issue" states probably do not want California to do anything that would put the supportive rulings from their Circuit Courts at risk. If the Supreme Court does not take up Drake, and Peruta is unchallenged, most of the "may issue" states' laws are safe for the foreseeable future.
 
As long as Peruta is upheld, 0% of the US population lives in a State where there is "may issue" or "no issue" on carry permits.
Click to expand...
With regard to California, I don't think that is true - yet.

There are further requirements beyond 'good cause', particularly 'good moral character'; there is also a case pending to address that.

If we get GMC = "pass a background check" added to GC = "lawful self defense", we should formally have 'shall issue'.

Then we get to address things like 'only able to handle 4 applications per day' as San Diego is currently asserting.
 
Then we get to address things like 'only able to handle 4 applications per day' as San Diego is currently asserting.
Click to expand...
That has been our biggest holdup since Sacramento Co got defacto "Shall Issue" a couple of years ago.

They originally had 1 officer handling it and he got quickly overwhelmed. Then they added another officer and a dedicated clerk, I think they were adding another officer to keep up. Last year they filled all the appointments available by the summer and folks were stalking the calender for cancellations
 
There is a 6 month waiting list to apply at the Sherriff's Dept. in Lincoln County OR. Another 3 or so to get it.
 
Carl N. Brown said:
As long as Peruta is upheld, 0% of the US population lives in a State where there is "may issue" or "no issue" on carry permits. In 1986, 91% of the US population lived in States where "may issue" or "no issue" applied to right-to-carry. (Some cities are still no issue or defacto no issue under restrictive may issue laws.)
Click to expand...
So New York, New Jersey, and Maryland don't count? Since this isn't going to the Supreme Court, the ruling only applies to the states in the 9th circuit. Takes care of Cali and Hawaii, but there are plenty of other problem spots out there.
 
Librarian said:
With regard to California, I don't think that is true - yet.

There are further requirements beyond 'good cause', particularly 'good moral character'; there is also a case pending to address that.

If we get GMC = "pass a background check" added to GC = "lawful self defense", we should formally have 'shall issue'.

Then we get to address things like 'only able to handle 4 applications per day' as San Diego is currently asserting.
Click to expand...



Yes, in regards to 'good moral character', some Counties are wanting to interview neighbors and possibly notify employers, get non-family character references and even do a psych eval.


Librarian, (9mmepiphany or anyone else) What case(s) are you referring to in regards to 'good moral character".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Q
  • Locked
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on Baker v Kealoha (Hawaii)
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
pendennis
P
S
  • Locked
(Ninth Circuit): Opening Brief Filed in NRA-CRPAF Supported CCW Suit Appeal
Replies
8
Views
843
Al Norris
A
alsaqr
  • Locked
Peruta To Be Reconsidered By 9th Circuit COA
Replies
15
Views
2K
Arizona_Mike
A
A
  • Locked
Shall Issue CCW is coming to San Diego County and to all of California.
2 3
Replies
63
Views
6K
bergmen
B
danez71
  • Locked
Peruta CA9 petitioned to SCOTUS -
2
Replies
43
Views
4K
CoalTrain49
CoalTrain49
Back
Top