California Soon to be Shall Issue?


lukem

lukem

Administrator
Staff member
I hope so!

"Three weeks from today, December 6th, we should have a ruling in the case of Ed Peruta v County of San Diego et al. If Ed is successful then California will become a "Shall Issue" state which means that police authorities will no longer be able to decide who can and who cannot obtain a license to carry a loaded firearm in public. For most of us, this means a license for Concealed Carry for a couple of million lucky people it means a non-discretionary license to openly carry a loaded handgun as well.

We will have to wait for the exact wording of the judge but I am hopeful that her decision will reflect what she wrote in her denial of a motion to dismiss the case back on January 14th of this year.

If the judge adopts the extreme minimalist case then, at a minimum, a CCW license becomes non-discretionary, meaning if one has the money and can pass whatever training requirements the issuing authority decrees then one must be issued a license to carry a weapon concealed, or a license to openly carry a loaded weapon in counties with a population of fewer than 200,000 people."

Link Removed
 

Last edited:
lukem said:
I hope so! Three weeks from today, December 6th, we should have a ruling in the case of Ed Peruta v County of San Diego et al. If Ed is successful then California will become a "Shall Issue" state which means that police authorities will no longer be able to decide who can and who cannot obtain a license to carry a loaded firearm in public. For most of us, this means a license for Concealed Carry for a couple of million lucky people it means a non-discretionary license to openly carry a loaded handgun as well.

We will have to wait for the exact wording of the judge but I am hopeful that her decision will reflect what she wrote in her denial of a motion to dismiss the case back on January 14th of this year.

If the judge adopts the extreme minimalist case then, at a minimum, a CCW license becomes non-discretionary, meaning if one has the money and can pass whatever training requirements the issuing authority decrees then one must be issued a license to carry a weapon concealed, or a license to openly carry a loaded weapon in counties with a population of fewer than 200,000 people.

Link Removed
Click to expand...

A few minor points of clarification:

- Loaded open carry will not be directly affected by this decision. Last year the PC was amended to remove the loophole that made a CCW a license to open carry also. That will be a separate fight.
- It won't actually make the state shall issue but it will have that effect. It will standardize good cause to include self defense, and good moral character as being a non-prohibited person. The may issue part, could just get ruled unconstitutional or it may be made an all or none sort of deal under the equal protections clause. Either would have pretty much the same effect. It may also make residency requirements more friendly to people that spend significant amounts of time here but don't live here full time.
 
inbox485 said:
A few minor points of clarification:

- Loaded open carry will not be directly affected by this decision. Last year the PC was amended to remove the loophole that made a CCW a license to open carry also. That will be a separate fight.
- It won't actually make the state shall issue but it will have that effect. It will standardize good cause to include self defense, and good moral character as being a non-prohibited person. The may issue part, could just get ruled unconstitutional or it may be made an all or none sort of deal under the equal protections clause. Either would have pretty much the same effect. It may also make residency requirements more friendly to people that spend significant amounts of time here but don't live here full time.
Click to expand...

Gotcha, thanks for the explanation.
 
I was one of the lucky few when I lived in California several years ago that had a CCW. I recognized the bias then and am hopeful that the laws will return to a more reasonable approach. I still have many friends living there that would also appreciate it.
 
I used to think CA was radical in their thinking. In more recent years, I've begun to think otherwise. Hopefully this and some other unrelated changes will give CA residents back the freedom to make decisions for themselves, as well as the right to defend themselves.

I also see ending marijuana prohibition having the ability to effectively reduce criminal drug-related violence stemming from outside their borders, but that's a completely different topic.
 
I dought much will change until the political land scape changes. Don't see that happening anytime soon. Too many progressive liberals control California.:pleasantry:
 
That just means that we need to get more active with our contacts to the individual representatives.
Each and everyone of those of us that want this to happen should get active, stay active and get others involved.
As Al Davis would say. "Just Win Baby . . . . Just Win" :biggrin:

Thanks for the tip on Ed Peruta v County of San Diego . . . . I was not aware of this.
I will have to look it up and get the details . . . .
 
lukem said:
I hope so!

"Three weeks from today, December 6th, we should have a ruling in the case of Ed Peruta v County of San Diego et al. If Ed is successful then California will become a "Shall Issue" state which means that police authorities will no longer be able to decide who can and who cannot obtain a license to carry a loaded firearm in public. For most of us, this means a license for Concealed Carry for a couple of million lucky people it means a non-discretionary license to openly carry a loaded handgun as well.

We will have to wait for the exact wording of the judge but I am hopeful that her decision will reflect what she wrote in her denial of a motion to dismiss the case back on January 14th of this year.

If the judge adopts the extreme minimalist case then, at a minimum, a CCW license becomes non-discretionary, meaning if one has the money and can pass whatever training requirements the issuing authority decrees then one must be issued a license to carry a weapon concealed, or a license to openly carry a loaded weapon in counties with a population of fewer than 200,000 people."

Link Removed
Click to expand...
:mad: Don't Count on it CA is ONE of the Worst States for CCW and Firearms in General only second to NY City........
 
Mad_River_Firearms said:
:mad: Don't Count on it CA is ONE of the Worst States for CCW and Firearms in General only second to NY City........
Click to expand...

Last I checked CalGuns is pretty optimistic. They know the ins and out and who's involved and they tend to be right on their expectations. The court delivering the opinion is the same that carved San Diego a new butt hole for filing a motion to dismiss.
 
I was lucky enough to attend the Peruta hearing in Sandy Eggo.
The questions before the court are.....personal protection will be good cause. Good moral character will be anyone who isn't prohibited from owning a firearm. The county counsel was a moron. He doesn't even know the penal code. He said in his arguments that the GFSZ was 1000 yards from a school. He also said they don't have many rejections. This is true because they do a pre interview and if your good cause is personal protection, don't bother to apply. Also that Heller only gave permission to carry in your home. He completely ignored Mc Donald. SD is not getting their money's worth with this attorney. I think he actually helped the Plaintiff's case. :pleasantry:
 
Would it be of any help if we wrote the judge?

If yes, who is the judge on this case and how do we contact her/him?

Thanks!
-a concerned Californian

BTW, HAPPY THANKSGIVING EVERYONE!
 
JRM said:
Would it be of any help if we wrote the judge?

If yes, who is the judge on this case and how do we contact her/him?

Thanks!
-a concerned Californian

BTW, HAPPY THANKSGIVING EVERYONE!
Click to expand...

Dunno if it would help, but...
Irma Gonzalez
US District court in San Diego.
 
Mad_River_Firearms said:
:mad: Don't Count on it CA is ONE of the Worst States for CCW and Firearms in General only second to NY City........
Click to expand...

Oh sure, worse than New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Illinois? More than half of the counties in the state are effectively "shall issue." We have the best Brady score, but there isn't a direct relationship between Brady score and onerous gun laws. At least I don't have to get a permission slip from the police or the state to purchase a long gun and the handgun safety certificate is a joke (more like a tax - any idiot could pass it).

Ryan
 
There's the whole time line with documents listed on Mr. Peruta's website:

Link Removed

Looks like we have to wait until the courts release their decision. Rats!
 
The last I heard there was to be a ruling from the Judge on the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Judge's ruling should be out December 6th-13th!

Should be anytime now for those that are paying attention.
Hold a good thought.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 193 (members: 0, guests: 193)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
49,544
Messages
611,260
Members
74,959
Latest member
defcon

Share this page

Back
Top