Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: William Tell

The courts ruling specifically stated that permits were
being denied and the reason stated was the applicant did
not show “good cause”. The 9th shot down that one single
reason and that is ALL that this ruling does. It will
require further legal appeals and activity to further
widen any changes to the current Penal code statute that
still states “MAY” issue.


21 posted on 02/24/2014 4:29:36 PM PST by nvscanman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]


To: nvscanman
nvscanman said: "The 9th shot down that one single reason and that is ALL that this ruling does. "

Can you point out any prior case with precedential value in the Ninth Circuit which establishes that bearing arms outside the home is an individual, fundamental, Constitutionally protected right which cannot be infringed? Isn't that what this case does? If not appealed, won't this case be BINDING on all federal circuit courts within all the western states which are within the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit?

Recognize that the reason for the ruling is not "dicta", it is essential to the ruling and lower courts are not free to ignore it.

What would justify a federal district court in this circuit simply deciding that "good moral character" need only meet a "rational basis" in order to be enforceable? They can't. Even if a total ban is not at issue, it doesn't mean the state gets a free ride. Factors which are less than a total ban would then involve deciding what level of scrutiny the state must meet.

Even the issue of whether a total ban is involved is not a cinch for the Sheriff. The Peruta decision points out that the issue is not whether somebody gets a permit, but whether everyone who should get a permit, gets one.

The fact that any Sheriff can ignore the consequences of Peruta doesn't mean that Peruta has no such consequences.

You need to explain how a district court can decide a case involving concealed carry without considering the Peruta decision. Such a court MIGHT ignore Peruta. That is not the issue. The issue is; would a court be justified in ignoring Peruta?

Let's put the question another way? What justification do you personally see for a Sheriff to be able to judge the "good moral character" of a person before deciding whether to issue a permit? Perhaps you and I disagree on this point and that is why you don't see the strength of Peruta.

22 posted on 02/25/2014 9:24:47 AM PST by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson