Good Moral Character

[Connor P Price]

Our case of Richards v. Prieto challenges GC and GMC specifically because both impose the subjective standards and prior restraint that is disallowed under developing 2A jurisprudence and the 1A framework SCOTUS instructed lower courts to use for this core fundamental right.

Because of the time lines of various cases, this discussion is a bit strange. I'm under the assumption that we will get carry rights affirmed on a national level in just under a year, that's just me letting my optimism shine through.

Right now we have counties in CA that we call shall issue (they aren't, but they're close enough that we call them that) and we have the other counties that aren't. We'll have Ventura good cause statements relatively soon, and I'd hope some more counties to follow. That's operating under the assumption that other counties will see the decision in the Ventura case and cough up the records like they are legally bound to do. Those good cause statements being released could cause an increase in applications depending on what we find. That's where the good moral character comes in.

Above, Brandon mentions Richards. I can never keep judicial time frames straight so I'm not quite sure when we're likely to get a decision in that particular case. If Richards gives us a favorable definition of good moral character then this issue is over. If not, the time period between the Richards decision and a favorable national carry decision isn't likely to be a long one.

For all I know, a few people could get denied on this basis and they'd be better off waiting a couple months for a scotus decision and then re-applying than they would be to appeal.

ETA: Who can give me a good time frame estimate on a Richards decision? Its beginning to look like its not going to make much of a difference for us is one of the scotus cases takes care of everything for us. (Not to say I think the case was a bad idea. Even if another case beats it to the punch its still solid legal strategy.)

[wildhawker]

Carry, generally, is likely to be decided by one of the cases with petitions in right now. That case will inform the courts of appeal how to rule in the carry cases before them (which will probably be continued until SCOTUS decides in June next year) or coming up now. There may be some issues where we get a split and go up to SCOTUS again; GC/GMC could be exemplars.

[hoffmang]

To stop Jehovah's Witnesses and other "undesirables" speech permits have often had "good moral character" requirements. They are per-se unconstitutional requirements and we will get a ruling on that issue for Yolo County to make sure this law is settled.

The legal argument is that a subjective requirement, as both GC and GMC are, is per-se unconstitutional when licensing a fundamental enumerated right. Only objective standards can be used.

-Gene

[Connor P Price]

To stop Jehovah's Witnesses and other "undesirables" speech permits have often had "good moral character" requirements. They are per-se unconstitutional requirements and we will get a ruling on that issue for Yolo County to make sure this law is settled.

The legal argument is that a subjective requirement, as both GC and GMC are, is per-se unconstitutional when licensing a fundamental enumerated right. Only objective standards can be used.

-Gene

So until the Yolo case is over... bohica CA gun owners, GMC is the next GC.

[hoffmang]

So until the Yolo case is over... bohica CA gun owners, GMC is the next GC.

Upon a SCOTUS carry ruling, our Yolo case will move very, very fast - one way or another. Also, most counties will understand they can't deny the license. That's going to be the point in the SCOTUS case.

GMC will not be a viable option to screw with gun owners.

-Gene

[Connor P Price]

Upon a SCOTUS carry ruling, our Yolo case will move very, very fast - one way or another. Also, most counties will understand they can't deny the license. That's going to be the point in the SCOTUS case.

GMC will not be a viable option to screw with gun owners.

-Gene

Definitely, any scotus decision will make it clear that the carry is a core aspect of the right and cant be denied based on arbitrary decisions by a sheriff. If the scotus decision comes first then the question being asked in the Yolo case would sorta go away wouldn't it?

Like I alluded to I'm terrible with remembering these timelines and knowing when each case is likely to be concluded. If I understand correctly the Yolo case is asking to define good cause as self defense and define good moral character as not otherwise prohibited. I suppose the way a scotus decision is worded this could go a few different ways, but isn't it likely that the requirements for good cause and good moral character will have to go away altogether? Or will it be sufficient to define them the way we want?

In my previous statement I was thinking a yolo decision would come first. All these cases with all these timelines continually throw me off.

[SanPedroShooter]

I understand that being denied for lack of cause is supposed to be non prejudicial, but what about being denied for lack of moral character?

That sounds pretty damn prejudiced to me.

Its not an objective denial, the Sherrif determines that you are a bad or untrustworthy person. Outch.

I guess if you look at it from the standpoint of "responsible enough to carry a gun (BANG, ha ha ha)" then it seems a little less bad.

Either way, arbritary and government shouldnt go together.

[ccmc]

How is something like GMC even determined?

[Glock22Fan]

How is something like GMC even determined?

By looking at behavior and activity and saying "A person with a GMC would NOT have done that!"

[ccmc]

By looking at behavior and activity and saying "A person with a GMC would NOT have done that!"

So let's say for argument's sake Bill Clinton decides to move to San Francisco or Los Angeles, and he decides he wants to apply for a CCW permit. Most people would say that cheating on your spouse with multiple partners isn't something a person with GMC would do. Would that automatically disqualify him from getting a CCW permit in CA?

[Glock22Fan]

. .
snip
. .

I'm not personally aware of any denials on the grounds of moral character that have been taken to court, successfully or otherwise.

There have been.

I would be interested in links or references to these

Depending upon the Sheriff's particular criteria, there have been people denied for too many, too recent traffic offenses (showing lack of judgement). Also, if you have been involved in a few bar brawls, or domestic disturbances, whether charges have been brought or not. Anything really that the sheriff believes marks you as a possible risk with a firearm, whether it is a criminal offense or not. After all, O.J. was found innocent, but many of us would not be happy to have him armed. OTOH, we have all heard of Hollywood actors with a terrible reputation for drugs, drink and fighting that do have a CCW.

Last I checked some ad hoc standard for "lack of judgment" is not an area of discretion under 12050. Moral character, however the licensing may define it, must be equally applied to all applicants, as you know.

You are getting confused between the law as it should be interpreted and the law as it really is interpreted in practice. As with Good Cause, they will get away with anything they want to until someone challenges them. So far, most of the judges are on their side, and I see this continuing to work this way until someone has a big hammer to smack down on them.

[wildhawker]

I would be interested in links or references to these

As I'm sure you can appreciate, those who reach out to us do so in confidence.

You are getting confused between the law as it should be interpreted and the law as it really is interpreted in practice. As with Good Cause, they will get away with anything they want to until someone challenges them. So far, most of the judges are on their side, and I see this continuing to work this way until someone has a big hammer to smack down on them.

We've laid out the anvil, and have two blacksmith's hammers already in motion. The only question the sheriffs should be asking right now is, "Do I want my policies and practices to be reshaped by force?"

-Brandon

[Glock22Fan]

As I'm sure you can appreciate, those who reach out to us do so in confidence.

-Brandon

Your claim was that there have been denials on GMC that have been taken to court, successful or otherwise.

If they have been taken to court, you can provide a citation without breaching confidence.

[wildhawker]

Your claim was that there have been denials on GMC that have been taken to court, successful or otherwise.

If they have been taken to court, you can provide a citation without breaching confidence.

No, my claim was that there have been denials based on GMC. I am aware of some that have been successfully appealed with assistance from legal counsel. I'm not aware of any GMC-centered civil litigation ever arising out of PC 12050.

[pitchbaby]

No, my claim was that there have been denials based on GMC. I am aware of some that have been successfully appealed with assistance from legal counsel. I'm not aware of any GMC-centered civil litigation ever arising out of PC 12050.

There could be... just sayin'