Heard about this and I can only hope that it is just a stepping stone on a more prosperous path for California gun owners.
Here's the same story - link is directly to the Associated Press news site:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CONCEALED_WEAPONS_PERMITS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
I would post the text too but if I read the AP "terms of Use" correctly that might put this site in jeopardy - sorry.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CONCEALED_WEAPONS_PERMITS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
I would post the text too but if I read the AP "terms of Use" correctly that might put this site in jeopardy - sorry.
And Hitler's response to the ruling is. . .
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.nraila.org/legal/articles/2014/victory-in-peruta-v-san-diego-ninth-circuit-confirms-right-to-carry-arms-in-public.aspx
Victory in Peruta v. San Diego: Ninth Circuit Confirms Right to Carry Arms in Public
Posted on February 14, 2014
In a tremendous victory for the right to keep and bear arms, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has confirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to carry firearms for self-defense in public. The landmark decision came in the NRA-supported case of Peruta v. San Diego County, brought on behalf of the CRPA Foundation and five individuals who were denied carry licenses by the San Diego Sheriff. In its ruling, this federal court struck down a San Diego County Sheriffs policy that prevented most law-abiding adults from getting a license to carry a firearm.
California law generally prohibits the carrying of firearms in public places, but allows sheriffs and chiefs of police to issue licenses to carry that exempt people from that prohibition. California law also sets out criteria for issuing those licenses. An applicant must: 1) be a resident of their respective city or county, 2) be of good moral character, and 3) have good cause for such a license. Applicants must also pass a firearms training course.
Although many rural California counties accept self-defense as good cause to get a license to carry, many urban sheriffs and scores of urban chiefs of police across California have a policy, like that of San Diego Sheriff William Gore, that does not recognize self-defense as sufficient good cause to get a license to carry. Instead, San Diego requires individuals to prove that they have a special need, beyond the desire to defend themselves and their families, in order to get a license. Under this heightened standard nearly all citizens are disqualified. So Sheriff Gores restrictive policy was essentially a ban on carrying firearms outside the home for most law-abiding adults, including the plaintiffs.
Peruta was filed in the federal district court in October 2009. That court upheld Sheriff Gores policy as constitutional, so the plaintiffs immediately appealed that decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The case got a great deal of attention when former Solicitor General, Paul Clement joined plaintiffs legal team. Mr. Clement argued eloquently on behalf of gun owners before the Ninth Circuit on December 6, 2012.
In its opinion reversing the district courts decision, the Court of Appeals held that San Diegos good cause policy is unconstitutional, and echoed the points made in the briefs and by Mr. Clement at oral argument; that the government can ban open carry or concealed carry, but the Second Amendment prohibits the government from banning both.
Peruta was one of many cases that have been filed all over the country challenging the constitutionality of laws limiting the issuance of licenses to carry a firearm in public since the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed in 2008 and 2010 that the Second Amendment prohibits state and local governments from infringing the right to keep and bear arms. The cases decided since then have met with mixed results. Many were unfavorable and contrary to the Heller decisions analysis. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals did confirm the right to carry is protected outside the home in its opinion in another NRA-supported case, Shepard v. Madigan. The Peruta court was heavily influenced by the rulings in the Sheppard and Moore cases. But those decisions did not go as far as Peruta, because the issue of carry licenses was not before the court in them. So Peruta is the first appellate decision to hold that licenses to carry cannot be denied to law-abiding citizens just because they do not have a special need to carry.
The Peruta ruling is a significant victory for the Second Amendment, and for the constitutional rights of all Americans, especially those in the Ninth Circuit. We want our members and supporters to know that your hard work and loyalty is paying big dividends in the vindication of the Second Amendment.
Victory in Peruta v. San Diego: Ninth Circuit Confirms Right to Carry Arms in Public
Posted on February 14, 2014
In a tremendous victory for the right to keep and bear arms, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has confirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to carry firearms for self-defense in public. The landmark decision came in the NRA-supported case of Peruta v. San Diego County, brought on behalf of the CRPA Foundation and five individuals who were denied carry licenses by the San Diego Sheriff. In its ruling, this federal court struck down a San Diego County Sheriffs policy that prevented most law-abiding adults from getting a license to carry a firearm.
California law generally prohibits the carrying of firearms in public places, but allows sheriffs and chiefs of police to issue licenses to carry that exempt people from that prohibition. California law also sets out criteria for issuing those licenses. An applicant must: 1) be a resident of their respective city or county, 2) be of good moral character, and 3) have good cause for such a license. Applicants must also pass a firearms training course.
Although many rural California counties accept self-defense as good cause to get a license to carry, many urban sheriffs and scores of urban chiefs of police across California have a policy, like that of San Diego Sheriff William Gore, that does not recognize self-defense as sufficient good cause to get a license to carry. Instead, San Diego requires individuals to prove that they have a special need, beyond the desire to defend themselves and their families, in order to get a license. Under this heightened standard nearly all citizens are disqualified. So Sheriff Gores restrictive policy was essentially a ban on carrying firearms outside the home for most law-abiding adults, including the plaintiffs.
Peruta was filed in the federal district court in October 2009. That court upheld Sheriff Gores policy as constitutional, so the plaintiffs immediately appealed that decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The case got a great deal of attention when former Solicitor General, Paul Clement joined plaintiffs legal team. Mr. Clement argued eloquently on behalf of gun owners before the Ninth Circuit on December 6, 2012.
In its opinion reversing the district courts decision, the Court of Appeals held that San Diegos good cause policy is unconstitutional, and echoed the points made in the briefs and by Mr. Clement at oral argument; that the government can ban open carry or concealed carry, but the Second Amendment prohibits the government from banning both.
Peruta was one of many cases that have been filed all over the country challenging the constitutionality of laws limiting the issuance of licenses to carry a firearm in public since the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed in 2008 and 2010 that the Second Amendment prohibits state and local governments from infringing the right to keep and bear arms. The cases decided since then have met with mixed results. Many were unfavorable and contrary to the Heller decisions analysis. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals did confirm the right to carry is protected outside the home in its opinion in another NRA-supported case, Shepard v. Madigan. The Peruta court was heavily influenced by the rulings in the Sheppard and Moore cases. But those decisions did not go as far as Peruta, because the issue of carry licenses was not before the court in them. So Peruta is the first appellate decision to hold that licenses to carry cannot be denied to law-abiding citizens just because they do not have a special need to carry.
The Peruta ruling is a significant victory for the Second Amendment, and for the constitutional rights of all Americans, especially those in the Ninth Circuit. We want our members and supporters to know that your hard work and loyalty is paying big dividends in the vindication of the Second Amendment.
© 2013 National Rifle Association of America. Institute for Legislative Action. This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
11250 Waples Mill Rd. Fairfax, VA 22030 1800-392-8683(VOTE)
11250 Waples Mill Rd. Fairfax, VA 22030 1800-392-8683(VOTE)
Was reading something and while this is currently a win, it may not stand as final yet.
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2014/02/thoughts_on_the_11.php
The county has 14 calendar days from the date of the ruling to move for rehearing en banc. If the county fails to move, any judge of the court, of their own volition, move for such rehearing within 21 days of the ruling. This seems to fit the grounds for such a motion, in particular conflict with other circuits and an issue of pressing national importance. A majority of the court can vote to grant.
En banc: normally, ruling are handed down by 3-judge panels. En banc in all other circuits means that all of the judges of the court take part and vote, after rehearing the matter. The 9th is so large, however (27 active-duty judges) that it has adopted a special rule. Ten judges are chosen at random, plus the chief judge (Alex Kosinski, a supporter of the 2A). For whatever it's worth, the 27 active-duty judges divide into 18 Democratic appointments and 9 Republican ones.
To complicate things, the Circuit can also vote to have a true en banc, with all 27 judges participating.
Once the en banc panel is chosen, it votes on whether to have additional briefing or argument. They almost always for for additional argument, I don't know about briefing.
If the en banc court reverses the panel ruling here, it'd make a really nice case for the Supreme Court (and maybe even if it upholds it). Big circuit split -- 7th and 9th Circuits taking a broad view of the right to bear arms outside the house, several other circuits saying "not until the Supreme Court orders us to do so." The panel decision has a great exploration of the issue, and is 77 pages long; the dissent is 40 pages, as I recall, and clearly presents the argument to the contrary. An en banc ruling would further flesh things out, with input from 11 (or 28) judges.
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2014/02/thoughts_on_the_11.php
The county has 14 calendar days from the date of the ruling to move for rehearing en banc. If the county fails to move, any judge of the court, of their own volition, move for such rehearing within 21 days of the ruling. This seems to fit the grounds for such a motion, in particular conflict with other circuits and an issue of pressing national importance. A majority of the court can vote to grant.
En banc: normally, ruling are handed down by 3-judge panels. En banc in all other circuits means that all of the judges of the court take part and vote, after rehearing the matter. The 9th is so large, however (27 active-duty judges) that it has adopted a special rule. Ten judges are chosen at random, plus the chief judge (Alex Kosinski, a supporter of the 2A). For whatever it's worth, the 27 active-duty judges divide into 18 Democratic appointments and 9 Republican ones.
To complicate things, the Circuit can also vote to have a true en banc, with all 27 judges participating.
Once the en banc panel is chosen, it votes on whether to have additional briefing or argument. They almost always for for additional argument, I don't know about briefing.
If the en banc court reverses the panel ruling here, it'd make a really nice case for the Supreme Court (and maybe even if it upholds it). Big circuit split -- 7th and 9th Circuits taking a broad view of the right to bear arms outside the house, several other circuits saying "not until the Supreme Court orders us to do so." The panel decision has a great exploration of the issue, and is 77 pages long; the dissent is 40 pages, as I recall, and clearly presents the argument to the contrary. An en banc ruling would further flesh things out, with input from 11 (or 28) judges.
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 2,168
- Reaction score
- 46
^^^Thanks for this^^^.
Trying to understand/navigate the bureaucracy of the Judiciary can be like trying to decipher the tax code sometimes.
No problem, was very interesting to find out for me as well. I know there are appeals but thought it went up to the next level of the court system. Sounds like Nazifornia could kill it in the 9th district but could still be used to pressure the SCOTUS to hear and rule on the subject. Both sides will still be nervous, ruling could be pro or anti or a combination thereof and change things in the US for a long time to come. I don't think it will change much for the states that are pro if the ruling is more anti but the anti states will probably try and kill carry all together if they have the SCOTUS on their side.
And along the same lines 19 state Attorney General's have filed for the SCOTUS to hear something along the same lines due to New Jersey's handling of CCW and the need to justify having it. http://www.thegunmag.com/ags-19-states-file-brief-supporting-safs-scotus-case/
And along the same lines 19 state Attorney General's have filed for the SCOTUS to hear something along the same lines due to New Jersey's handling of CCW and the need to justify having it. http://www.thegunmag.com/ags-19-states-file-brief-supporting-safs-scotus-case/
Last edited:
Brief by 22 gun rights organizations and individual carry case plaintiffs argue that the Peruta decision should stand: https://www.firearmspolicy.org/2014...-of-appeals-in-peruta-v-san-diego-carry-case/
The amici brief can be read here: https://www.firearmspolicy.org/wp-c...ruta-amici-brief-opposing-rehearing-FILED.pdf
"Amici have a strong interest in avoiding the creation of a “free option” for state officials to jump into litigation at what is normally considered the end of a case, rather than the beginning."
They lay out a solid argument for Kamala Harris to gtf out of the way and let the ruling stand.....
The amici brief can be read here: https://www.firearmspolicy.org/wp-c...ruta-amici-brief-opposing-rehearing-FILED.pdf
"Amici have a strong interest in avoiding the creation of a “free option” for state officials to jump into litigation at what is normally considered the end of a case, rather than the beginning."
They lay out a solid argument for Kamala Harris to gtf out of the way and let the ruling stand.....
How American would it be for every citizen of the United States Of America be allowed to protect themselves and their loved ones where ever they are 24/7?
