Skip to comments.SD Sheriff Gore Announce County Will NOT Appeal Peruta Verdit
Posted on 02/21/2014 6:18:49 PM PST by RKV
Dear Supervisors: On Thursday February 13, 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion in the case of Peruta, et.al v. County of San Diego, et.al concluding that the State of California's requirement of "good cause," in cases where an applicant wants a firearm for personal protection, impermissibly infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense. In its opinion, the Ninth Circuit defined the issue on appeal as "whether a responsible, law-abiding citizen has a right under the Second Amendment to carry a firearm in public for self-defense." In so doing, the Ninth Circuit took an exhaustive look at the history of jurisprudence surrounding the Second Amendment, and more specifically what it means to "bear arms." It is clear, given the 2-1 split in this opinion, as well as the split among Federal Circuits across the Country, that there is no easy answer on which everyone will agree. The decision by the Ninth Circuit has found that the Second Amendment requires that states permit some form of firearm carry for self-defense outside the home. Additionally, the Ninth Circuit went on to emphasize that "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession 'or carriage' of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Since becoming Sheriff, I have always maintained that it is the legislature's responsibility to make the laws, and the judiciary's responsibility to interpret them and their constitutionality. Law enforcement's role is to uphold and enforce the law. The legislature certainly has the power to amend California's firearm carry process, and the Ninth Circuit has the ability to bring its own motion to rehear the decision of the three member panel en banc. However, while the court's decision clearly involves a question of exceptional importance, and conflicts with decisions of other United States Courts of Appeals, the opinion provides clear guidance in the context of issuing CCWs in California. Therefore, I see no need for me to petition for a hearing or rehearing en banc in order to be able to carry out my duties as Sheriff of San Diego County. As a result, I have advised the Office of County Counsel that I will not seek such a hearing. Should the decision of the Ninth Circuit become final, the Sheriff's Department will begin to issue CCW's in situations where the applicant has met all other lawful qualifications and has requested a CCW for purposes of self-defense.
Soon I hope guys. Then we cut the fees, weird requirements and speed up the process. THEN Constitutional Carry. Eat the apple one bite at a time.
Link not worky
Link is middle of the page below. Had problems with it.
DOES follow through to a .pdf of the letter from Gore.
3/4 way down, left side
Here’s an article that backs it up.
Thanks. I enjoy reading long good news articles.
It ain’t over, but I think I see the fat lady in wings getting ready.
Idiot Sheriff. He took an oath to defend the Constitution, not follow blindly to legislators or justices that might cause violence to it. He is the final elected official to guarantee our rights.
What happens March 7th? If not appealed or reheard, when will all counties have to allow a self defense good cause statement?
This is a Calguns thread started by Ed Peruta just a while ago.
So....are these sheriffs up for election this year? Or do they just not want to lose the whole enchilada at the SC?
“The OC Sheriff has decided to follow the ruling and shall issue CCWs unless stopped by another ruling”
Hmmmm, I live in the OC and will have to look into this. I will see if the Register says anything about it.
The OC Register has not stated much about it. The paper's editorial staff is generally pro-freedom but not the news staff.
i.e., “please let me keep my job”
Exactly! Legislators and the courts cannot nullify the Constitution with flim-flam arguments, decisions and legislation that contradicts the Constitution’s plain language.
However I fear we are overrun with idiots who would raise nary a finger in defense of liberties handed down by God. At some point the purge will commence.
NOTHING IS GOING TO CHANGE AND NO FLOOD OF PERMITS WILL HAPPEN.....and this is why.
Ca Penal Code Section 12050
12050. (a) (1) (A) The sheriff of a county, upon proof that the person applying is of good moral character, that good cause exists for the issuance, and that the person applying satisfies any one of the conditions specified in subparagraph (D) and has completed a course of training as described in subparagraph (E), may issue to that person a license to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person in either one of the following formats:
The Subsections to this article address other issues but
Paragraph A is the guiding directive. The KEY word in this
paragraph is the word MAY....the code says the chief LEO
MAY issue a permit. It does not say SHALL. All the
9th circus courts ruling did was to delete the phrase regarding good cause from this code. It does not change
the word MAY to SHALL. Only the legislature can make that change. Unless and until such a change IS made, and that is VERY unlikely California remains a MAY ISSUE state not a SHALL ISSUE state. That means that the decision to issue or not issue is at the SOLE discretion of
the chief LEO involved. The recent court decision ONLY means that said LEO may not use the phrase regarding good
cause as a reason to refuse to issue. He can still refuse
to issue a permit....and he isnt required to give a reason.
Sand Diego County and Orange County think otherwise. Perhaps we can encourage the others.