gc70
Member
Whatever Orange County does is irrelevant; Orange County was not a party to the case.
Whatever Orange County does is irrelevant; Orange County was not a party to the case.
Irrelevant to the appeal, good point. Irrelevant totally? Far from it. Great to see movement in policy as a result of the ruling.
danez71 said:But I'm wondering if there is a hint of no appeal since OC Sheriff Dept is already complying.
Whatever Orange County does is irrelevant to whether Peruta is appealed because Orange County was not a party to the case.
Better?
A judge on the 9th Circuit could still call for review.
San Diego Sheriff says SD will not appeal Peruta.
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.
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.
Librarian said:San Diego Sheriff says SD will not appeal Peruta.
A judge on the 9th Circuit could still call for review.
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.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
.... 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 ....
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.
CA doesn't want to keep losing in court. It undermines their 'image'.
With regard to California, I don't think that is true - yet.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.
That has been our biggest holdup since Sacramento Co got defacto "Shall Issue" a couple of years ago.Then we get to address things like 'only able to handle 4 applications per day' as San Diego is currently asserting.
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.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.)
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.