California just turned shall issue!
S

speeedracerr

New member
State of California (AG Kamala Harris) motion to intervene denied

Brady Campaign motion for leave to intervene denied

CPCA and CPOA petition for hearing En Banc construed as motion to intervene denied

Looks like a great day for Californians :eek:

BREAKING: 9th Circuit Court Denies Peruta Appeal; California Gun Rights Restored - The Truth About Guns
 

It's early yet, but I think you're going to find that the statement at TTAG that, "Peruta is settled law in 9th" is not accurate. Peruta was only brought, and only counted against Sheriff Gore and San Diego County Sheriff's Department. The denial to rehear the case en banc may very well show other counties/sheriffs that the writing is on the wall, but still, I don't think the denial(s) for appeal apply to them directly.

No law was ruled on in Peruta. Only a policy of Sheriff Gore's was challenged. He basically had a blanket prohibition on the issuance of permission slips. The court ruled blanket prohibitions are unconstitutional, so OK, the sheriff in Sand Diego County (only) has to come up with some articulable rationale for denying an application. Even if he doesn't come up with a rationale for every single applicant's denial, there's no court-ordered time limit on how long he can take to look for a reason to deny it. He can keep "investigating" an applicant indefinitely, and even if Peruta is ruled to apply throughout the 9th Circus, so can every other sheriff do the same.

Peruta was really a big nothing-burger. TTAG seems to have gone off half-cocked reporting it the way they did.

Blues
 
I don't think it's a done deal yet. This case means that self defense is sufficient "good cause" for a CCW, but presently the Sheriffs Dept still may try to deny based on "good moral character" which is undefined, so they may use it as their next excuse to not issue.
 
Errrr, believe it when they start issuing permits. Until then it's all hypothetical. Friggin Libs, go figure. The only Amendment they can't stand. Opps, maybe the fourth as well. "Vee Vell control"
 
Liberals hate the Constitution because it limits their control and power. But, as we have learned of late, if no one calls them on it, well party on. :sarcastic:
 
From my understanding... Although this is a big win for California, as some of you mentioned we are not out of the woods yet. Apparently it is not a chess game to see what actions the State Attorney General ops to take, or if this even heads all the way to the SCOTUS. But, one thing I do agree is in the major counties like in Los Angeles and San Francisco we do have an issue of "Good Moral Character" which can be left open to interpretation to issuing agencies. But, the fact that the good cause requirement had been upheld virtually makes California, a shall issue since no one can be denied by that reason alone. Although it appears it is limited to San Diego, since it was upheld any other counties who attempts to deny due to "good cause" will suffer the same fate as what happened in San Diego as settled law. We just need to wait to see what Kamala Harris' next moves are to determine what steps are next. Good cause definitely needs to be stricken down, since that leaves things too vague and ambiguous. None the less, it's one giant step for California considering how far left that state is. Good day in California, but not without a good fight we have ahead.
 
speeedracerr said:
From my understanding... Although this is a big win for California, as some of you mentioned we are not out of the woods yet. Apparently it is not a chess game to see what actions the State Attorney General ops to take, or if this even heads all the way to the SCOTUS. But, one thing I do agree is in the major counties like in Los Angeles and San Francisco we do have an issue of "Good Moral Character" which can be left open to interpretation to issuing agencies. But, the fact that the good cause requirement had been upheld virtually makes California, a shall issue since no one can be denied by that reason alone. Although it appears it is limited to San Diego, since it was upheld any other counties who attempts to deny due to "good cause" will suffer the same fate as what happened in San Diego as settled law. We just need to wait to see what Kamala Harris' next moves are to determine what steps are next. Good cause definitely needs to be stricken down, since that leaves things too vague and ambiguous. None the less, it's one giant step for California considering how far left that state is. Good day in California, but not without a good fight we have ahead.
Click to expand...

Not intended as an insult, but I really think you're missing the big picture here. Peruta did not challenge the California concealed carry laws in any way, shape, manner or form. Peruta challenged a policy of the San Diego County Sheriff's Dept, that's it. No ruling on that policy issue can affect, either negatively or positively, the concealed carry laws in CA, period.

As I look further into this it is becoming apparent that the court denied the appeals as a tactic to avoid having to address the carry laws in CA, and that relates to both concealed and open carry. There are a number of suits and appeals pending that overturning Peruta would've made it easier to prevail on, so the whole court split the baby and left Peruta as-is to avoid having to actually rule on the constitutionality of CA's code sections on carry issues. In other words, the decision to deny the appeals is a strategy to further solidify CA's unconstitutional anti-gun agenda, not to endorse the language within the Peruta ruling as applicable state-wide, and since Peruta never was about the law to begin with, the code sections regarding carry restrictions are left untouched by upholding Peruta.

Link Removed for information and analysis of Peruta. The site owner doesn't have anything about the appeals denials yet except for just a headline-style announcement, but the analysis of the case up to that point is very enlightening as to the significance (or insignificance as the case may be) of Peruta overall to CA's carry laws.

Blues
 
BluesStringer said:
Not intended as an insult, but I really think you're missing the big picture here. Peruta did not challenge the California concealed carry laws in any way, shape, manner or form. Peruta challenged a policy of the San Diego County Sheriff's Dept, that's it. No ruling on that policy issue can affect, either negatively or positively, the concealed carry laws in CA, period.
Click to expand...

Which is one of the reasons the 9CA gave as denying intervenor status to the CA AG. No state law was affected, only SD County's policy.
 
Well at least it looks like your going in the right direction and some one is doing something. Here in the Peoples Republic of New Jersey it's the same old crap. God bless and I hope my CA friends get their shall issue status.
 
No real difference between shall issue and discretionary issue states. Both have the same exact criteria for denying a permit. Neither can make a denial arbitrary or capricious.
 
There is more info regarding the Peruta outcome:
Straight from Michel and Associates, PC Attonreys at Law:
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."
 
speeedracerr said:
There is more info regarding the Peruta outcome:
Straight from Michel and Associates, PC Attonreys at Law:
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."
Click to expand...

Translation into the language of Realism:

"The Peruta ruling was a long overdue recognition of the privilege of citizens to beg their servants for permission to exercise their God-given rights to keep and bear arms, which the citizens' servants can deny for any and all reasons except for a blanket prohibition in San Diego County, CA only."

As of this writing, Peruta is a nothing-burger for CA. The language used by the original 3-judge panel might be useful in other cases if the presiding judge(s) allows it in as supporting 2A issues in those cases, but since Peruta did not challenge any law, state or federal, it will be up to the presiding judge to decide if it gets in or not. Even if it does come in though, it will not be as legal and binding precedent, but only as kind of a "Hey look, these three judges said this one day about a policy issue in San Diego. Take it with however many grains of salt you wish!" Whether a jury or a judge hearing such a case where that gets in, that's the extent of legal weight they will be obligated to give it.

I have no idea why people are so excited about Peruta. His policy issue with Sheriff Gore in San Diego means nothing to anybody except Mr. Peruta himself, and even at that, it was nothing more than a feel-good "victory." He sure as heck doesn't have a permission slip in San Diego now as a result of the ruling, and never will because he doesn't even live there. A bunch of Pollyanna prose by the law firm that argued the case doesn't change that reality, and it's baffling that people would try so hard to believe in the CA Peruta ruling as some kind of major victory for anyone anywhere, including San Diegoans, or anyone else in CA.

Blues
 
BC1 said:
No real difference between shall issue and discretionary issue states. Both have the same exact criteria for denying a permit. Neither can make a denial arbitrary or capricious.
Click to expand...

Apparently you've never looked at the facts of discretionary issue states. In San Diego County, Los Angeles County, and others, the only people who get permits are those who are connected.
 
tattedupboy said:
Until the issuance of permits on a non discretionary basis becomes commonplace, don't hold your breath.
Click to expand...

That is what the courts are for, and so far California 2A movement has the ball rolling and that is what is important. Soon enough, hopefully we'll have a true shall issue state in California.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 234 (members: 0, guests: 234)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
49,518
Messages
610,634
Members
74,975
Latest member
noah

Share this page

Back
Top