Sykes and Peruta cases, what if.

[nicki]

What if both Sacramento and Yolo counties agree to shall issue and play no games with the issuance of CCW permits, basically cave in, would that limit ccw issuance to only sacramento/Yolo counties only or would the rest of the state be affected.

The same with the Peruta case, what if San Diego just caves in. Of course the number of plantiffs has increased, but I don't know if more counties have been brought in all.

Nicki

[Gray Peterson]

Merely issuing licenses to the aggrieved parties will not fix the issue, as organizations cannot be issued a CCW (though with Citizens United, who knows). I know something of this because of my federal civil litigation against Denver and Colorado, so I had to be educated on this subject:

In order to have something effective and forever binding on the issuing agencies that are being sued, you need something called a "stipulated consent agreement" to be agreed to by both parties and approved by the federal judge. It is a binding agreement which is supervised by a federal judge (it's similar to the stipulated agreement that the Assenza case settled out with LAPD a quite few years back in state court).

I do not believe that this will happen in either of these cases. The politics of these counties generally disallow a settlement.

[press1280]

If they did all of a sudden throw up their hands and say that they can't afford to fight in court and go de facto shall-issue, my guess is Gura and Co. will find other stingy-issue counties and work from there. I don't know if it would even have to be in CA since Sykes was launched due to Nordyke's incorporation, which is now nationwide. Some NY counties could be targeted for example.
But I'm not on the inner circle, so I don't know for sure. Just a hunch.

[PsychGuy274]

I believe that since both of those cases are being filed against their own counties (versus filing a suit against the state of California) that the decisions will stay within those counties. However, a victory in either of those could set precedent for other counties to fight back and get changed to shall issue as well.

I'm sure someone more knowledgeable on these cases will chime in soon and correct me if I'm wrong.

[Scarecrow Repair]

Settlement might not be possible, in that I believe it is state law that requires "may issue". If that's the case, the only possible result would be a victory to throw out the state law.

But if settlement were possible, it would have to be legally binding, not just issuance of permits, and would almost certainly include payment of fees. This would finance the next round of lawsuits in different counties. Each settlement would increase the ease of the next lawsuit, and eventually the state would be shall issue. I suspect it would only take 2 or 3 rounds, as each succeeding round could involve more counties.

IANAL.

[OleCuss]

I believe that since both of those cases are being filed against their own counties (versus filing a suit against the state of California) that the decisions will stay within those counties. However, a victory in either of those could set precedent for other counties to fight back and get changed to shall issue as well.

I'm sure someone more knowledgeable on these cases will chime in soon and correct me if I'm wrong.

I didn't check on Peruta, but Sykes is in a US District Court.

[dantodd]

If they did all of a sudden throw up their hands and say that they can't afford to fight in court and go de facto shall-issue, my guess is Gura and Co. will find other stingy-issue counties and work from there.

They are already in court, and as Gray pointed out, not all of the plaintiffs are real people so they can't get rid of the case by just issuing to those who have applied. If they do choose to "throw up their hands" it will be by not committing resources to the case, and not appealing if/when we win in District court. One of the requests made of the court is to remove the need for "good cause" in the law so the application process would be the same but the sheriff couldn't refuse to issue simply because you don't have "good cause" for the permit.

So, if Sacto or Yolo "concede" the case and the law is changed, most of us will be able to get a CCW within just a few months. This is because most counties will see what CGF did to Sacramento and decide their money is better spent on things that don't involve lining the pockets of CGF's attorneys. At that point most mildly anti-CCW counties will start handing them out like candy. There will be some recalcitrant counties that will resist and, despite the court decision will refuse to issue to mortals. CalGuns Foundation will have some special surprises for them I am sure. If you live in San Francisco, LA or Alameda county I suspect it might be a little longer but the rest of us should be able to get a CCW fairly soon.

[M1A Rifleman]

If I read the decision correctly, it only stated you have the right to guns in the home. I read nothing regarding carrying guns outside the home for self defense. This would mean the right to carry guns outside the home remains as uncharted territory. I predict these CA cases regarding CCW will be struck down as not an infringement based upon no SC precedent, same for the safe handguns as I bet it will be argued as only a minor infringement, but still plenty of guns available. I hope I am wrong, but I prefer to be pessimistic.

[Glock22Fan]

Settlement might not be possible, in that I believe it is state law that requires "may issue". If that's the case, the only possible result would be a victory to throw out the state law.

But if settlement were possible, it would have to be legally binding, not just issuance of permits, and would almost certainly include payment of fees. This would finance the next round of lawsuits in different counties. Each settlement would increase the ease of the next lawsuit, and eventually the state would be shall issue. I suspect it would only take 2 or 3 rounds, as each succeeding round could involve more counties.

IANAL.

There are different ways of interpreting "May Issue" and a settlement is certainly possible.

On your last suggestion, I have been saying for years that we are invoking the domino effect, knock one down, and it makes it easier to another down, then another and so forth.

Team Billy Jack has been nibbling away at this for years, long before most of you heard of people like Gura (to whom all due praise), at last SCOTUS gives us a mighty weapon.

[Glock22Fan]

If I read the decision correctly, it only stated you have the right to guns in the home. I read nothing regarding carrying guns outside the home for self defense. This would mean the right to carry guns outside the home remains as uncharted territory. I predict these CA cases regarding CCW will be struck down as not an infringement based upon no SC precedent, same for the safe handguns as I bet it will be argued as only a minor infringement, but still plenty of guns available. I hope I am wrong, but I prefer to be pessimistic.

It reaffirmed that the 2nd meant keep and bear guns.

They also said that in the home was a primary example of this, leaving it obvious that there must be other examples outside the home.

It was a fairly narrow ruling, because that is what they were asked for (deliberately) but the links are there to be built on.

Never fear.

[Untamed1972]

If I read the decision correctly, it only stated you have the right to guns in the home. I read nothing regarding carrying guns outside the home for self defense. This would mean the right to carry guns outside the home remains as uncharted territory. I predict these CA cases regarding CCW will be struck down as not an infringement based upon no SC precedent, same for the safe handguns as I bet it will be argued as only a minor infringement, but still plenty of guns available. I hope I am wrong, but I prefer to be pessimistic.

I keep seeing people say this but I think they're failing to take notice of this statement from the decision"

From page 39 section IV

"Municipal respondents’ remaining arguments are at war with our central holding in Heller: that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defensewithin the home."

Notice is says "keep and bear are for lawful purposes"....not ONLY in the home, but "most notably in the home." Which to me would mean by exetention "also for self-defense less notably outside the home."...but less notably is still notable.

So to me that indicates the bearing arms for lawful purposes OUTSIDE of the home is ALSO protected.

Yes, the phrase about keeping in the home is repatedly used, but I dont ever recall reading where it ever said ONLY in the home. I would hafta go back and find the actual quote but the decision did make reference to excluding firearms from sensitive places like schools and gov't buildings. Well there are alot of places then that were NOT excluded by that statement which to me also indicates they DID extend that protection to outside of the home with exception of certain sensitive places. Yes....I'm sure that will be one of the tools the anti's try to use....trying to declare EVERYWHERE a sensitive place, but I think that will not last long, since a good portion of the country is already shall issue and they're not gonna want to be restricted by overly broad, far-reaching definitions of sensitive places.

[RobG]

They are already in court, and as Gray pointed out, not all of the plaintiffs are real people so they can't get rid of the case by just issuing to those who have applied. If they do choose to "throw up their hands" it will be by not committing resources to the case, and not appealing if/when we win in District court. One of the requests made of the court is to remove the need for "good cause" in the law so the application process would be the same but the sheriff couldn't refuse to issue simply because you don't have "good cause" for the permit.

So, if Sacto or Yolo "concede" the case and the law is changed, most of us will be able to get a CCW within just a few months. This is because most counties will see what CGF did to Sacramento and decide their money is better spent on things that don't involve lining the pockets of CGF's attorneys. At that point most mildly anti-CCW counties will start handing them out like candy. There will be some recalcitrant counties that will resist and, despite the court decision will refuse to issue to mortals. CalGuns Foundation will have some special surprises for them I am sure. If you live in San Francisco, LA or Alameda county I suspect it might be a little longer but the rest of us should be able to get a CCW fairly soon.

Hoping for, but not holding my breath, from Yolo county.

[BigDogatPlay]

So to me that indicates the bearing arms for lawful purposes OUTSIDE of the home is ALSO protected.

Yes, the phrase about keeping in the home is repatedly used, but I dont ever recall reading where it ever said ONLY in the home.

Good reading and excellent analysis, I think. This has to be taken within the larger context that the state may impose reasonable restrictions, and licensure of concealed carry is almost certainly going to be seen as reasonable for those states that have that.

If AB 1934 takes OC off the table, as I expect it will, then the only path to carry in California will be CC licensure. The current law and practice has been demonstrated on many occasions (hat tip to TBJ and others) as being capricious and unfair in practice and administration. Even with wins in Sykes and Peruta, there will be some counties that won't see the handwriting on the wall and the CLEOs will stomp their feet and advocate for AB 1934.

And they will be sealing their own fate as post McDonald, and using Untamed1972's theory above, the practices of the "refuse-nik" CLEOs and those who bestow permits as gifts in kind will be open to attack for exactly what they are..... violations of civil rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

Some CLEOs like Lee Baca, Charlie Beck and Mike Hennessy will fight to the bitter end. But in the end they will lose. We can thank the courage of Otis McDonald and the skill of Alan Gura and his team for that.

[hvengel]

...If AB 1934 takes OC off the table, as I expect it will, then the only path to carry in California will be CC licensure.....

And this will only make the case against the current CCW laws stronger.

[nick]

What if both Sacramento and Yolo counties agree to shall issue and play no games with the issuance of CCW permits, basically cave in, would that limit ccw issuance to only sacramento/Yolo counties only or would the rest of the state be affected.

The same with the Peruta case, what if San Diego just caves in. Of course the number of plantiffs has increased, but I don't know if more counties have been brought in all.

Nicki

Even if that was likely, who'd trust them. The Assenza settlement with LAPD is being largely ignored by LAPD with impunity.