Court Ruling Ends California Concealed Carry Restrictions

By Dave Dolbee published on in News

California Gun Rights Restored — 9th Circuit Court Denies Peruta Appeal

Earlier this year, The Shooter’s Log reported a Second Amendment rights win in California when the Ninth Circuit’s three-judge panel in Peruta v. San Diego affirmed the right of law-abiding citizens to carry handguns for lawful protection in public. San Diego County had denied lead plaintiff Edward Peruta and others a license to carry concealed, which, according to state law, required residents to show “good cause” for carrying—personal safety alone did not qualify as good cause in California.

The court disagreed and struck the highly subjective “good cause” requirement. That was a major win from a state known for being very left of center and extremely anti-gun in its politics. Of course a win for the good guys means sour grapes for the anti-gunners who immediately demanded San Diego’s Sheriff William Gore appeal the decision.

Gavel with American flag

Gun owners’ in California won a major victory in gun rights.

The Sheriff seems to be a true American who believes in citizens’ constitutional rights though. The Sheriff refused to intervene so the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and none other than California Attorney General Kamala Harris intervened in an attempt to stomp on the rights of law-abiding citizens.

Harris and Brady petitioned the court to present evidence in the case that would force an appeal. The court saw through the ruse however, and noted essentially that the case had begun over four years prior to the late entrants sudden urge to become involved. In the end, “the panel held that the movants did not meet the heavy burden of demonstrating imperative reasons in favor of intervention on appeal. Noting that the movants sought intervention more than four years after the case began, the panel stated that the stage of the proceedings, the length of the delay, and the reason for the delay all weighed against timeliness. In the absence of a timely motion, intervention was unavailable.”

Further clarifying the reasoning behind the court’s decision, “The panel further concluded that 28 U.S.C. § 2403 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.1 did not provide a basis for intervention because the panel’s opinion never drew into question the constitutionality of any California statute, but only questioned San Diego County’s exercise of regulatory authority under the relevant state statutes, specifically the County’s policy that an assertion of self-defense is insufficient to demonstrate “good cause” under the California statutory scheme.”

Essentially, this all means Harris, Brady and a handful of other who all sought to jump on the bandwagon after the original ruling were simply too late to the game. It is a victory and one that Second Amendment enthusiasts and the citizens of California can celebrate. This removes a major hurdle in the battle to force lawmakers and rouge leaders to recognize our natural and constitutional right to bear arms and self-defense.

What do you think of California’s gun laws? Does anyone have information to share about Sheriff W. Gore? Share your thoughts in the comment section.

SLRule

Growing up in Pennsylvania’s game-rich Allegany region, Dave Dolbee was introduced to whitetail hunting at a young age. At age 19 he bought his first bow while serving in the U.S. Navy, and began bowhunting after returning from Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm. Dave was a sponsored Pro Staff Shooter for several top archery companies during the 1990s and an Olympic hopeful holding up to 16 archery records at one point. During Dave’s writing career, he has written for several smaller publications as well as many major content providers such as Guns & Ammo, Shooting Times, Outdoor Life, Petersen’s Hunting, Rifle Shooter, Petersen’s Bowhunting, Bowhunter, Game & Fish magazines, Handguns, F.O.P Fraternal Order of Police, Archery Business, SHOT Business, OutdoorRoadmap.com, TheGearExpert.com and others. Dave is currently a staff writer for Cheaper Than Dirt!

View all articles by Dave Dolbee

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Trackback from your site.

The mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, "The Shooter's Log," is to provide information-not opinions-to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (125)

  • Mr Independence

    |

    Let me start by telling you that I LOVE AMERICA.
    I am outraged by the recent rulings by these Spineless Cowards who call themselves Judges…
    I stand and will defend all that is good and decent in this Country.
    Therefore , from this day forward I do not recognize California as part of the United States of America.And this includes any other State that bans US citizens from legally carrying concealed weapons….
    Furthermore, I consider the ruling by the 9th CCofA as a Treasonous Act upon the citizens of these United States of America…
    I do herby call on all my Gun Owning Brothers and Sisters to demand the Immediate Arrest and Detention of all the Judges residing on the 9th CCofA. And any another Judges that choose to ban Law Abiding citizens the right to carry Consealed Weapons.
    This is a direct Violation of the Declaration of Independence…
    This Violates our Rights to Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the right to protect ourselves from any gun carrying criminals who try to separate us from our property.
    And this Act of Treason Prohibits us from Thwarting any act of Aggression at our Schools,Churches,Nightclubs or at any Public function.
    Thank You and God Bless America

    Reply

  • Nathan McDonald

    |

    I think that all of the politicians need to remember how voted them in to office. They are supposed to work for the people to protect our rights. Not to take our rights away.

    Reply

  • Steve

    |

    Riverside County Sheriff is still asking for cause. Does anyone know a good lawyer willing to fight this?

    Reply

  • Wagonmaster

    |

    The trick in CA is getting the permit in the first place. After that, if your record is clean, renewal effort and expense should be minimal. I believe that is also the opportunity CA gives you to change any of the three “approved” carry guns enumerated on your permit.

    In AZ, a permit holder renews by downloading a form from the AZ-DPS website, filling it out and submitting it with the current fee, which is nominal. You have a window of around 90 days before, and 60 days after, the expiration date to renew without having to submit a new application. AZ puts no limits or ID on which guns you are allowed to carry.

    Reply

  • alexisgrpa

    |

    To Smitty 550.
    I believe the renewal fee is $80. It is for two years and I was told you could do it via telephone or online.

    Reply

    • Smitty 550

      |

      Alex, do you know if re-qualification at a shooting range and/or classroom time is also involved every two years? Also, I wonder if $80 is an arbitrary amount that is thrown at the re-applicant or if it truly reflects the costs incurred by the “system.” It seems to me that if such entities as Amazon don’t charge anything to purchase from them online that the same situation should apply to those who reapply for their CCW online. Wagonmaster, what do you say?

      Reply

    • alexisgrpa

      |

      I believe it is like a drivers license. As long as you don’t let it get out dated you don’t have to take another class room session or re-qualify. with your guns. Who knows what the real costs incurred are.

      Reply

Leave a comment

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.

%d bloggers like this: