• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged 9th Circuit Strikes Down "May Issue" Concealed carry In California

leftysergeant said:
The original California whackadoodle gun laws resulted from the mainstream culture's fear of the Black Panthers.

Restricting CCW on a "may issue" basis was intended to keep the right the sole domain of "acceptable" people, as identified by the cops.

Very bad idea.

Set a standard and hold everybody to it.

Good job, 9TH.
Click to expand...

Correct. The Panthers went to Sacramento armed, underwear needed to be changed, and loaded open carry was banned pdq.

Local stories about the Ninth's verdict is bordering on hysteria, with SF stations reporting that if the ruling stands, there will be no possible control over concealed carry.

Spoke with a relative in S.D. who reports sad faces on news readers - and pretty much the same spin as up here.

It amazes me that not one report notes that 42 out of 50 states have "shall-issue" or "no permit required" carry laws and the world hasn't ended in any of 'em.

I guess California is just such a special place that what works just about anywhere else is absolutely out of the question here...even if most residents of California came here from another state or another country.

ETA - I love this part of the ruling, first footnote:

There are a few narrow exceptions to this rule. Armored vehicle guards
and retired federal officers may carry a loaded firearm in public without meeting
stringent permitting requirements. See Cal. Penal Code § 26015 (armored vehicle
guards); id. § 26020 (retired federal officers). And a citizen may carry a loaded
firearm in public if: (1) he is engaged in the act of attempting to make a lawful
arrest; (2) he is hunting in locations where it is lawful to hunt; or (3) he faces
immediate, grave danger provided that the weapon is only carried in “the brief
interval” between the time law enforcement officials are notified of the danger and
the time they arrive on the scene (where the fleeing victim would obtain a gun
during that interval is apparently left to Providence). Id. § 26040 (hunting); id. §
26045 (immediate, grave danger); id. § 26050 (attempting to make a lawful arrest).

Kind of reminds me of the recent interview of Harvey Weinstein by Howard Stern. Watch for yourself:



Mr. Weinstein recognizes the need of a firearm, not in America.

"This is when you're marching half-a-million people into Auschwitz. I mean, whatever, I'd find a gun if that was happening to my people. I don't think we need guns in this country."

I guess Mr. Weinstein is simply following the California Statute.
 
Last edited:
San Diego folds up their tent

file:///C:/Users/Owner/Downloads/PressRelease.pdf

Today, San Diego County Sheriff Bill Gore notified the County Board of Supervisors of his intention not to seek en banc review in the matter Peruta, et.al v. County of San Diego.

A copy of Sheriff Gore's letter to the Board of Supervisors is below. 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.
 
BStrong said:
file:///C:/Users/Owner/Downloads/PressRelease.pdf

Today, San Diego County Sheriff Bill Gore notified the County Board of Supervisors of his intention not to seek en banc review in the matter Peruta, et.al v. County of San Diego.

A copy of Sheriff Gore's letter to the Board of Supervisors is below. 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.
Click to expand...
It could still go to en banc review if one of the circuit judges requests it, but given how well written the opinion was and the fact that a judge requesting an en banc review has to give a written opinion as to why that is I'm having a hard time envisioning this will happen. If it doesn't the ruling becomes binding precedent in the 9th Circuit on March 6.

The 9th Circuit also includes Hawaii, which issues no carry permits currently, they'll have change that policy. IIRC it also includes Guam and Samoa.
 
WildCat said:
It could still go to en banc review if one of the circuit judges requests it, but given how well written the opinion was and the fact that a judge requesting an en banc review has to give a written opinion as to why that is I'm having a hard time envisioning this will happen. If it doesn't the ruling becomes binding precedent in the 9th Circuit on March 6.

The 9th Circuit also includes Hawaii, which issues no carry permits currently, they'll have change that policy. IIRC it also includes Guam and Samoa.
Click to expand...

There are other actions against other California counties concealed carry issuing policies that will be effected by this, so it very well could be that the 9th will hold an en banc hearing.

WRT San Diego, they're already on the hook for plantiff's legal costs, and probably want to limit their liability in much the same way Alameda county did in the Nordyke case:

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2012/06/01/07-15763.pdf

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Nordyke_v._King

When the writing was on the wall, Alameda settled and thus avoided the liability for paying plantiff's legal fees.
 
Cal-FFL on the Sacramento Bee editorial on the 9th Circuit ruling:

http://www.calffl.org/2014/03/sacbees-support-jim-crow-style-policies-shows-true-colors/

"The only argument that the Bee’s editorial board offers in support of their policy preference is an old, tired, and plainly elitist one: that fundamental human rights should only be exercised by the class of people they (or their ideological allies) deem suitable. In so many cases, history shows that the “chosen ones” in subjective licensing schemes have been—and remain—predominantly made up of rich, white males with political or personal connections to the gatekeepers of civil rights.

Does the Bee really believe that, for example, the political donors who received a handgun carry license from recently-retired Los Angeles Sheriff Lee Baca are more suited to carry guns in public than thousands of trained, law-abiding Angelenos, or that former San Francisco Sheriff Michael Hennessey’s lawyer was the only person in the entire county qualified enough to conceal a Glock?"
 
BStrong said:
...Does the Bee really believe that, for example, the political donors who received a handgun carry license from recently-retired Los Angeles Sheriff Lee Baca are more suited to carry guns in public than thousands of trained, law-abiding Angelenos, or that former San Francisco Sheriff Michael Hennessey’s lawyer was the only person in the entire county qualified enough to conceal a Glock?"
Click to expand...

So if the licensing process has been discriminatory the solution is to let everyone carry? :boggled:
 
newyorkguy said:
So if the licensing process has been discriminatory the solution is to let everyone carry? :boggled:
Click to expand...

Not at all.

The solution is for the issuing authority to issue carry permits to individuals that would be otherwise qualified, and knock off the discriminatory policies identified during the discovery phase of these suits.

It's no joke - in county after county, jurisdictions that specifically reject "self-defense" as a good cause in their written policies provided to applicants, "self-defense" was the stated good cause for individuals who were issued carry permits, who when cross referenced against donor lists - wait for it - were campaign donors to the issuing Sheriff.

Now with the Heller and McDonald rulings specifically citing self defense as the core right of the Second, those same agencies have lost their subjective wedge to deny issuance to otherwise qualified applicants and there are people in county government just about making in their pants with the thought that they don't have the control over permit issuance they once took for granted and used for a perk for their benefit.

Local media isn't even making an effort to pretend that they're neutral - every editorial comes down to blood in the streets and "the police will have to issue permits to gang members!"

It hasn't come out in public so far, but in a couple of counties that settled out of court on earlier suits, the issuing agency is now using the "good moral character" clause to deny issuance...on folks never convicted of any crime, who had two parking citations...and no explanation as to what the "GMC" denial was based on.

Things will be getting interesting in California for the next 3-4 years at least.

Additional note - no local media carried stories about yesterday's 9th Circuit decision in the Yolo county case, but they all carried this story:

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Sunnyvale-s-gun-limit-uphold-in-court-5291401.php

A ruling that we knew was coming. Sunnyvale is actually on slightly firmer legal ground than S.F on the same law, as Sunnyvale was smart enough not to mandate that such magazines be "removed from the state" as SF did, but SF isn't very well noted for realizing that their authority pretty much ends at the county line.
 
casebro said:
Did you meant "additional legal fees"?
Click to expand...

What happened in the Nordyke case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordyke_v._King

Is that the county settled before judgement, thereby getting out from under the requirement that in cases involving civil rights, if the plaintiff prevails they're entitled to their attorney fees.

This is the new tactic being employed to discourage aggressive litigation on the part of plaintiffs, along with pre-trial offers of settlement by the issuance of carry permits if that's the subject of litigation. In some counties it's been the experience of applicants not fitting into the standard demographic of successful applicants that if they hire counsel and pursue the license outside of the types of suits being filed over the course of the last couple of years, they can successfully apply for the carry permit, depending on how well their attorney knows the local system.
 
The Sacramento Bee reported the Yolo County decision:

In the latest victory for firearms advocates, a federal appeals court has tossed out Yolo County’s policy requiring citizens to prove they face a threat of violence or robbery before they can get a concealed weapon permit. In an unpublished memorandum issued Wednesday by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a three-judge panel found Yolo County’s “policy impermissibly infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense.” Link
Click to expand...

Can anyone explain where exactly the phrase "right to bear arms in lawful self-defense" is found in the Second Amendment?

Yolo County’s policy required applicants to show they faced “credible threats of violence” or that they carried large amounts of cash and needed enhanced protection. Can someone explain what is wrong with this policy? Other than it violates "the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense."

In other words, you shouldn't have to prove a need when it's a right. And in Yolo County, at least since yesterday, the Second Amendment grants people the right to carry a concealed firearm.
 
Cylinder said:
It's a common law right.
Click to expand...

What does that mean? As I understand it common law is case law by judicial rulings. Unlike statutory law enacted by the lawmakers.

So if I understand you correctly what you're saying is, you agree the phrase "right to bear arms in lawful self-defense," does not appear anywhere in the Second Amendment. The language arises from a court case and the judges' ruling.

So you're saying the Amendments to the Constitution can basically mean anything any judge says they mean?
 
newyorkguy said:
So if I understand you correctly what you're saying is, you agree the phrase "right to bear arms in lawful self-defense," does not appear anywhere in the Second Amendment. The language arises from a court case and the judges' ruling.
Click to expand...

No, you do not understand what I'm saying. Case law contributes to the common law, kind of like the Houston Ship Channel contributes to the Gulf of Mexico. It becomes a right by custom and practice.
 
newyorkguy said:
So if the licensing process has been discriminatory the solution is to let everyone carry? :boggled:
Click to expand...

I generally support tough gun laws, but I think as a general principle the government needs to treat people equally to the greatest degree possible. Something like 40 states have "must issue" concealed carry permits, and it's rare (Zimmerman and a couple other notorious cases aside) for a licensee to be involved in misconduct. The states can require formal training in an approved course, background checks with fingerprinting, etc., etc., and can pull the license for breaking the rules (liking carrying the gun into a bar, let alone waving it around). A county judge or local sheriff shouldn't be able to decide whether you are entitled to exercise your rights.
 
A friend told me today that San Diego County is appealing- and I don't mean the weather.

I'm going to go a-googling.

Link < http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?120578-Peruta-v-San-Diego-en-banc-petitions-filed >

9Th has stayed the mandate until it decides whether to en-banc Peruta. Which hinges on whether some johnny-come latelies have standing. Brady bunch, Ca. AG, and a LEO group. None look likely to me, and we all know how valuable my opinion is.

But also the host of that link (Nichols) has an appeal of the OC law nearing the 9Th.

That link is rather enlightening.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom