Peruta v. County of San Diego (CCW) [Filed for cert to SCOTUS, 1/12/17]

[press1280]

Umm...isn't GC now based upon the sheriff's personal standard. Isn't that why issuance varies so much in CA?

[dca965]

Umm...isn't GC now based upon the sheriff's personal skewed standard. Isn't that why issuance varies so much in CA?

Emphasis mine......

[rplaw]

Umm...isn't GC now based upon the sheriff's personal standard. Isn't that why issuance varies so much in CA?

This is the problem that Peruta supposedly fixes.

It's easy - the Sheriff can issue for good cause. He CANNOT issue OR REFUSE to issue for unlawful reasons.

He cannot issue to cronies on the basis that they are cronies.
He cannot issue to campaign donors because they are campaign donors.

He cannot refuse to issue unless the applicant is a campaign donor or crony.
He cannot refuse to issue based upon race, marital status, religion, etc.
He cannot refuse to issue because he doesn't like the fact that people carry guns in public.
He cannot refuse to issue unless applicants do more than what the law requires before he will issue.
He cannot refuse to issue as a matter of personal (or even professional) preference.

ALL of those things are unlawful.

[Drivedabizness]

This is the problem that Peruta supposedly fixes.

It's easy - the Sheriff can issue for good cause. He CANNOT issue OR REFUSE to issue for unlawful reasons.

He cannot issue to cronies on the basis that they are cronies.
He cannot issue to campaign donors because they are campaign donors.

He cannot refuse to issue unless the applicant is a campaign donor or crony.
He cannot refuse to issue based upon race, marital status, religion, etc.
He cannot refuse to issue because he doesn't like the fact that people carry guns in public.
He cannot refuse to issue unless applicants do more than what the law requires before he will issue.
He cannot refuse to issue as a matter of personal (or even professional) preference.

ALL of those things are unlawful.

Peruta does not address issuing (or not) to cronies.
Nor campaign donors,
Nor race, marital status or most of the other things you reference.
All Peruta says is that law-abiding people must be issued using self defense as good cause. Inherent in that language is the premise that onerous GMC or other requirements that prevent law-abiding people from being able to carry for self defense are not permissible - but those wold require further litigation.
Not that the other things you mention aren't an equal protection and or CA PC violation (and possibly run afoul of public corruption laws). They just aren't addressed in Peruta.
The last one was already addressed in Block - and that was before Heller and McDonald.

[IVC]

Peruta does not address issuing (or not) to cronies.
Nor campaign donors,
Nor race, marital status or most of the other things you reference.
All Peruta says is that law-abiding people must be issued using self defense as good cause.

He was giving an example of what else would be unconstitutional, not implying that Peruta addressed any of those issues.

[IVC]

The issue is that the statute giving discretion to each sheriff is basically crippled by Peruta, leaving it essentially worthless unless someone were to put down on an application that they were going to rob a bank or something illegal like that.

Only if you assert that the primary reason for having discretion in the first place is to prevent people from carrying in public.

Otherwise, nothing is crippled since the law stays intact. If the state wants to have a very restrictive system, they can always pass a new law and make it explicit and uniform who can and who cannot carry and why. Of course, such a law would have to pass constitutional muster...

[teg33]

So what's the latest news ?

[Tincon]

That's a real matter of debate now isn't it. As I read the law, it gives CA sheriffs the right to determine what is good cause. The Peruta decision strips that right away and thus defies legislative intent which was to give each CA country discretion on determining what constitutes good cause. So I'd suggest that state law is implicated by Peruta.

By that reasoning, any constitutional challenge to the conduct of a public official would draw into question the constitutionality of a federal or state statute. Because if it the conduct was discretionary then your reasoning would apply, and if it wasn't then there would clearly be a challenge to the law itself.

If that were true, FRCP 5.1 would be a lot simpler, and just say that any constitutional challenge requires notice to the AG. But it doesn't, so that should tell you that there is obviously something wrong with your reasoning.

Not that it matters much at this point.

[dca965]

Only if you assert that the primary reason for having discretion in the first place is to prevent people from carrying in public.

Otherwise, nothing is crippled since the law stays intact. If the state wants to have a very restrictive system, they can always pass a new law and make it explicit and uniform who can and who cannot carry and why. Of course, such a law would have to pass constitutional muster...

Emphasis mine.

http://www.dailydemocrat.com/breakingnews/ci_25342529/despite-court-ruling-yolo-county-concealed-weapons-law?IADID=Search-www.dailydemocrat.com-www.dailydemocrat.com

If and when the new policy is finalized, any law-abiding resident with the desire for self-defense would be able to apply for a permit, which Prieto finds "alarming. " He said that his main concern is that people who are involved in criminal activities, who have never been convicted, would be able to carry a concealed weapon."

"It's alarming to me that these individuals are going to be able to carry a concealed weapon," he said. "The significant difference here is that these criminals are going to have a card with my signature saying that they can carry the weapon."

[Racer_X]

So what's the latest news ?

Just subscribe to the thread shown below for the latest updates.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=893452

[randian]

If they haven't been convicted, then by law they aren't criminals. Do keep up Mr. Prieto.

[bruss01]

I saw the brief from our side on why the AG should be denied intervention etc...

I have not seen a Christmas Eve brief from the AG defending the request. Anyone have a link?

N/M - found it.

[aBrowningfan]

Just subscribe to the thread shown below for the latest updates.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=893452

Cliff-Notes version - keep on waiting.

[wazdat]

I saw the brief from our side on why the AG should be denied intervention etc...

I have not seen a Christmas Eve brief from the AG defending the request. Anyone have a link?

N/M - found it.

Please share.

[Metal God]

IMO the intent of GC was to let sheriffs and Chiefs of police to decide . If you remember during oral arguments . One of the judges asked about how you are more inherent to need a gun in rural areas maybe to defend against a bear or other wildlife etc. I believe The intent of the good cause part was to allow sheriffs and less populated areas to issue permits while urban areas or well populated areas sheriffs could refuse permits . That's my belief of what the intent of good cause was about and It had nothing to do with political donors cronies and special favors . I'm sure at the time of that legislation there was some debate going on . Does anybody have access to those records ? It should've all been public record by now we should be able to see exactly what the intent was or least how they tried to explain the intent .