9th circuit rules "good cause" for handgun permits impermissibly burdens the 2nd amendment

[n4p226r 105]

Sheriff decided not to appeal. The decision becomes final next week, but a judge on the 9th circuit can ask for en Banc review within 7 days. Less likely than the appellants asking but still a possibility. So, Barring another appeal, CA will become shall issue on March 7.This also has a huge effect on our case, Drake v Jerejian since there is now a well established circuit split.

So at that time other places like LA and San Fran will also be legally bound by whatever the ring is without having any way to appeal?

[ryan_j 0]

So at that time other places like LA and San Fran will also be legally bound by whatever the ring is without having any way to appeal?

Absolutely. They will have to allow some method to obtain a concealed carry permit, or state law will have to change to allow loaded open carry. Orange County is already accepting applications, because they were also sued (I believe by SAF/Gura). Others say they are reviewing the decision.

 

There are three avenues to appeal left - en Banc requested by the sheriff, en Banc requested by a judge on the 9th circuit and a petition for a writ of certiorari (Supreme Court). The sheriff isn't going to appeal, and it is unlikely that he will file for cert. A judge on the 9th may appeal but given the strong, well researched opinion I doubt it. From what I was told they hate en Banc because it is a real time waster.

 

But by March 7, California will be de facto shall issue.

[springfieldxds 0]

I read there's a strong chance that the sheriff will appeal to the Supreme Court

[Mr.Stu 1,922]

I read there's a strong chance that the sheriff will appeal to the Supreme Court

 

Check the docment linked by Ryan in post #122. He states as clearly as I think he can that he is satisfied with the ruling and will carry out his job as per the clarified instructions.

 

I think Ca have won their battle and it all counts as strength to our argument before SCOTUS. I am really quite optimistic.

[springfieldxds 0]

The simplest way for Hawaii to fix the problem would be to excise four words from the statute: “In an exceptional case.” Then the statute could be read so that need to carry for ordinary protection against ordinary crime could be construed as a sufficient basis for a permit. Alternatively, the Hawaii Supreme Court could apply a narrowing construction to the statutory language, bringing it into line with the requirements of the U.S. Constitution. There are many examples of state Supreme Courts construing state statutes so as to save those statutes from violating the First Amendment or other constitutional provisions. A Hawaii court might point out that in other states, typically less than 5-10 percent of the population obtains a permit, and this is “exceptional” enough. The requirement for “urgency OR need” could be met by the ordinary need to have the ability to defend oneself in an emergency.

 

 

Can somebody put this into simpler words?

[springfieldxds 0]

A Hawaii court might point out that in other states, typically less than 5-10 percent of the population obtains a permit, and this is “exceptional” enough. The requirement for “urgency OR need” could be met by the ordinary need to have the ability to defend oneself in an emergency.

 

Its mostly this part, is this to say there is loop hole for Hawaii to remain may issue?

[ryan_j 0]

I read there's a strong chance that the sheriff will appeal to the Supreme Court

He said he won't.

[ryan_j 0]

The simplest way for Hawaii to fix the problem would be to excise four words from the statute: “In an exceptional case.” Then the statute could be read so that need to carry for ordinary protection against ordinary crime could be construed as a sufficient basis for a permit. Alternatively, the Hawaii Supreme Court could apply a narrowing construction to the statutory language, bringing it into line with the requirements of the U.S. Constitution. There are many examples of state Supreme Courts construing state statutes so as to save those statutes from violating the First Amendment or other constitutional provisions. A Hawaii court might point out that in other states, typically less than 5-10 percent of the population obtains a permit, and this is “exceptional” enough. The requirement for “urgency OR need” could be met by the ordinary need to have the ability to defend oneself in an emergency.

 

 

Can somebody put this into simpler words?

It basically means that Hawaii now has to adjust its statutes to allow anyone to obtain a permit. They can do this by allowing an application to be approved for self defense against ordinary crime, instead of "exceptional crime" (eg. death threats). Or they could simply issue to anyone for any reason because so few people get a permit anyway. The net effect is shall issue.

 

There are a few cases in the pipeline in Hawaii and this decision can now be used as precedent for them so I suspect this will bet resolved shortly.

[ryan_j 0]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/21/san-diego-sheriff-will-not-seek-9th-circuit-en-banc-in-peruta-right-to-carry-case/ I assume this is your source.

 

 

[ryan_j 0]

This is something we need to prepare for as well. If the go open carry I want to see buses to Trenton for open carry rallies, often. I want to see people open carrying everywhere, even in the wawa. Ladies, get a pink gun and OC it. Guys, get a green gun and OC it. Make them WANT to give us concealed carry to hide those evil guns from the children. http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-79401186/

[n4p226r 105]

few things about that article

 

1. I'm game. I've got a full size sig waiting. Have no problem buying a holster with retention.

 

2. It seems that the anti gunners in California are pretty much seeing that they are defeated.

 

3. I can't imagine even the anti gunners preferring open carry only.

 

I also read the attorney general may get involved in the appeal. Is that a possibility?

[JibbaJabba 7]

This is something we need to prepare for as well. If the go open carry I want to see buses to Trenton for open carry rallies, often. I want to see people open carrying everywhere, even in the wawa. Ladies, get a pink gun and OC it. Guys, get a green gun and OC it. Make them WANT to give us concealed carry to hide those evil guns from the children. http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-79401186/

That article is disgusting. Adam Winkler is advocating for open carry so law-abiding gun owners DON'T carry due to an openly displayed firearm being a bullseye for potential criminals. Would the deaths of a few gun owners satisfy this twerp if it meant a decrease in the amount of firearms in the streets?

[ryan_j 0]

few things about that article

 

1. I'm game. I've got a full size sig waiting. Have no problem buying a holster with retention.

 

2. It seems that the anti gunners in California are pretty much seeing that they are defeated.

 

3. I can't imagine even the anti gunners preferring open carry only.

 

I also read the attorney general may get involved in the appeal. Is that a possibility?

The AG could get involved. Kamala Harris is a big time gun grabber. But she has until Friday to file an appeal. After that the only avenues left are en banc requested by a judge on the 9th or certiorari.

[intercooler 41]

she will file...100%

[n4p226r 105]

That's what I am thinking as well

[ryan_j 0]

she will file...100%[/quote

Maybe not. From what I'm seeing, genie's out of the bottle, it will be a real uphill battle for her. But she has until Friday.

[ryan_j 0]

I love to see antis get their panties in a bunch http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_25202566/mercury-news-editorial-concealed-weapons-permit-decision-could

[Contrvlr 17]

I love to see antis get their panties in a bunch http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_25202566/mercury-news-editorial-concealed-weapons-permit-decision-could

That's disgusting

Basically; more guns in the hands of law abiding citizen's is dangerous ; because Trayvon

Wanna puke now

[ryan_j 0]

The AG could get involved. Kamala Harris is a big time gun grabber. But she has until Friday to file an appeal. After that the only avenues left are en banc requested by a judge on the 9th or certiorari.

Well I was wrong about this. Only the sheriff was a party, so the AG has no standing. Only ones who can get this case re-heard now are the judges on the 9th circuit.

[intercooler 41]

they will hear it

[ryan_j 0]

Things are changing rapidly in California now.

 

A few other counties are now accepting applications with "self defense" as the good cause. San Diego is now accepting applications by mail to deal with the workload. They even have a drop box to drop off the apps. They are slammed.
 

I think it's relatively safe to say there's no turning back. Congrats to our brothers and sisters in California. 

 

 

Maybe I should start practicing the qualification course for when NJ gets shall issue. 

[springfieldxds 0]

Things are changing rapidly in California now.

 

A few other counties are now accepting applications with "self defense" as the good cause. San Diego is now accepting applications by mail to deal with the workload. They even have a drop box to drop off the apps. They are slammed.

 

I think it's relatively safe to say there's no turning back. Congrats to our brothers and sisters in California. 

 

 

Maybe I should start practicing the qualification course for when NJ gets shall issue. 

 

 

what is the qualifications to get a permit in NJ?

[ryan_j 0]

 

what is the qualifications to get a permit in NJ?

 

Apart from justifiable need, you need:

 

Completed app form in triplicate

3 references

fingerprints

Photos

$20 app fee

 

The training requirement I believe is an NRA course, test in the state's firearms laws and a range qualification.

 

The range qualification I have been told is the same as law enforcement. 

 

http://www.state.nj.us/lps/dcj/pdfs/dcj-firearms.pdf

 

Page 35

[springfieldxds 0]

Apart from justifiable need, you need:

 

Completed app form in triplicate

3 references

fingerprints

Photos

$20 app fee

 

The training requirement I believe is an NRA course, test in the state's firearms laws and a range qualification.

 

The range qualification I have been told is the same as law enforcement. 

 

http://www.state.nj.us/lps/dcj/pdfs/dcj-firearms.pdf

 

Page 35

Wow! That's some elaborate range qualifications, with the laws test and the required qualification would the permit be accessible even without justifiable need lol

[NicePants 58]

Wow! That's some elaborate range qualifications, with the laws test and the required qualification would the permit be accessible even without justifiable need lol

Que? Aside from the changes in positioning all you have to do is pass with a score of 80, which only requires you to safely handle the weapon and get most of the shots within the target. A chimp with palsy could pass those qualifications.

[ryan_j 0]

Yeah it's not that hard. 

 

I've done it and did not miss a shot. It didn't count for anything though. 

[NJPatriot 0]

Is the firearms law and range test administered by the State or through Contractors such as those who offer the out of state non resident ccw courses?

[intercooler 41]

Does it matter? You aren't getting one anytime soon

[ryan_j 0]

Does it matter? You aren't getting one anytime soon

 

You will be eating your words come next year is my prediction. 

[ryan_j 0]

Is the firearms law and range test administered by the State or through Contractors such as those who offer the out of state non resident ccw courses?

 

I think it's done through private instructors. Gun for Hire does the whole package for security guards.