search
top

Civil Rights Victory in California!

Go outside to shovel some now, and come back in and the world has changed. I wish every snowstorm accompanied good news like this. The restrictive licensing regime imposed by San Diego County, where applicants have to demonstrate need, has been struck down by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which would effectively make California “shall-issue” if the ruling holds. I can’t believe I just said “California” and “shall-issue” in the same sentence. Congratulations to Clayton for having two of his law reviews cited in the opinion. From Dave Kopel:

The Peruta decision does not strike down California’s statutes about licensing for the carrying of firearms. The decision simply says that the “good cause” requirement may not be interpreted in a manner that disable typical law-abiding citizens from being able to obtain carry permits. The state statute is fine; the way the statute was interpreted by many California jurisdictions is not.

The next step for San Diego would be to petition for en banc review, in front of the whole circuit, and from there, to the Supreme Court, if they choose to hear it. Hopefully this is the next step in bringing the blue states back to America.

UPDATE: All is proceeding as Joe has foreseen.

UPDATE: Bob Owens has a pretty good list of choice quotes from the opinion.

UPDATE: Emily Miller: A big win for NRA. It’s been crickets from the gun control groups. They’ve been trying to tailor a narrative that they win most of the court cases, which is true. But we’re winning the ones that matter.

78 Responses to “Civil Rights Victory in California!”

  1. JBiros says:

    Amazing, esp out of the 9th Circuit…..they have not been the most 2nd Amend friendly court.

    • Sebastian says:

      There are some pro-2a justices on the 9th. It’s a big circuit, so it’s a bit of the luck of the draw.

      • HSR47 says:

        Kozinski is on that court, and he is firmly in our camp. That being said, I wouldn’t count on having more friends in our camp for an en banc hearing.

        Given Silveira v. Lockyer and Hickman, it’s fairly clear that the judges on that court pre-Heller were very much in the “collective right” camp. Given that Heller shot that to hell, and given that the last CA concealed carry case that made it that far was shot down on the basis that OC was legal (a loophole that CA chose to close), I’d say that we certainly have a shot. Still, I tend to be a bit pessimistic in such matters, so I’d say we have maybe a 50/50 shot of a positive outcome from an en-banc hearing in the 9th Circuit.

    • Flighterdoc says:

      When you have lost the Ninth Circus…..

  2. Andrew says:

    Clayton. Wow. My hero. Seriously.

  3. Patrick H says:

    This is great news!

    Also note the court said you can ban open carry, or concealed carry, but not both. The good cause language had the purposing of de facto banning carry.

    And guess what: the open carriers who fought for their rights, and lost by having open carry banned- actually helped get this decision. So maybe they aren’t so clowny after all. Maybe fighting for your rights is GOOD.

    • Open carry has been an effective tool for scaring some states into shall issue concealed permits. Once you have that, open carry is more likely to produce negative than positive reactions.

      • Kirk Parker says:

        Once you have that, open carry is more likely to produce negative than positive reactions.

        Well, not quite. Granted, I speak from the vantage point of a state that’s very open-friendly carry (even in the so-called liberal parts like Seattle and Olympia!) But I would amend your remark to say, “it depends on how the open-carriers comport themselves.”

        Get a bunch of Leonard Embody act-alikes? Yeah talk about shooting ourselves in the foot. But a bunch of Jim Beals, just going about their daily business while inconspicuously open-carrying a pistol in a proper retention holster? That’s winning…

  4. KevinC says:

    Dave Kopel in the WaPo is of the opinion that because the 9th split with the 2nd and 4th on this issue, it’s almost certainly headed to the Supreme Court.

    • Matthew Carberry says:

      Well, it’s now LA (9th Circuit) and Chicago (7th Cir) versus New York City, Boston and DC. 22 of the 25 largest cities and a majority of the US population are now in “shall-issue” states.

      Since the antis lost Illinois, California and Hawaii were the only restrictive “may-issue” states left West of Mega City One.

      Who are the “bitter clingers” now?

      • Patrick says:

        Baltimore and Annapolis, not DC. DC hasn’t been heard from yet (Palmer).

        Woollard was a Maryland case and that is the one in the 4th that the Peruta decision quoted from, at length. Also note that Woollard won in district, but it was overturned in the Circuit.

  5. Dave says:

    Glad to know that my monthly donation to Calguns paid off – although I live on the other side of the country.

    Don’t forget to donate!

    Joe has made a strong case to continue donating to SAF… anyone reconsider their position re SAF and litigation donation support?

    • HSR47 says:

      Cases like this are why I’d consider sending money to SAF when I won’t send another DIME to NRA outside of what is needed to maintain my instructor certs (and even that is paid through an intermediary at this point).

      • Sebastian says:

        Peruta was an NRA-backed case, not an SAF case.

      • todd says:

        This was the NRA case not the SAF case. Gura has had his ass handed to him a number of times. So you can beef about NRA all you want, but the fact is this was their case and they won it.

      • Patrick says:

        Lead counsel was Paul Clement and his bills were paid for by NRA, et al.

        I used to play the line between these two groups, and learned I was wrong about many, many things. I have tremendous respect for both organizations.

        People are competitive, and I think sometimes we think of these guys like we think of sports teams. Not so. We’re all on one team. Sometimes one of us drop a ball, but the point of teaming is that we are all there to pick it up and help make the run.

        This is a big win (for now). Let’s just celebrate and enjoy each others company for a bit.

        • Dozer says:

          Clement was brought in as a signal to both The county and Court, incluidng SCOTUS NRA was serious about the case

        • HSR47 says:

          I certainly agree with the “same team” rhetoric.

          That is precisely why I have a hate-on for the NRA: the actions of the ILA rep for PA give the distinct impression that he thinks interfacing with grassroots groups is somehow beneath him. From what I have seen, PA is not the only state he represents where there is such a hostile working relationship between NRA/ILA and grassroots groups.

          In my experience, Hohenwarter has an “inside the beltway” attitude, as does NRAILA; they push what they think we should have, and not what we actually want. Whenever I have tried to address this with anyone from NRA/ILA I have gotten nothing but dismissive inside the beltway waffle.

          As a grassroots activist I would love to have the NRAILA on my team; they don’t seem to see things the same way though, which largely makes it impossible to work with them.

          To be clear, I say this as someone who has only recently become politically active on this issue (I became active when I purchased my first firearm at 21), and as a life member of the NRA who has valid NRA instructor credentials (basic pistol/rifle/shotgun, muzzleloading rifle, RSO) through almost the end of 2021 (yes, really). I’m also a BSA-certified Shooting Sports Director, and I actively engage in providing a safe opportunity for young men to learn to use firearms.

          • Sebastian says:

            What do you mean by “on your team?” The idea that Hohenwarter is all the things you claim is a carefully constructed narrative created by people who have an axe to grind. You’re not going to get invited to all the same legislative meetings the NRA lobbyists for the state is going to get invited to. He can’t drag an entourage of people along with him in meetings with lawmakers. Anyone who is doing that is doing it for show, because anything you see that happens out in the open is theater, and not the place decisions really get made.

            My main beef with John Hohenwarter is that he’s pretty much exclusively a lobbyist, whereas my ideal model of a State Liaison is a combination grassroots coordinator and lobbyist. I wouldn’t disagree that John needs to do a better job of working with grassroots, but there a lot of egos in the gun issue in this state, and I can’t really blame the guy for deciding not to spend time dealing with the bullshit rather than doing his job.

            • HSR47 says:

              I’d be more inclined to believe the NRA line re:Hohenwarter if PA were the only state where there were major issues between grassroots groups and John. Given the fact that there is video proof of his counter-productive scheming in NH, I have a hard time going easy on him.

              As you acknowledge, the proper role of the ILA is to (at least try to) work with local grassroots pro-2a groups; as far as I can tell, Hohenwarter doesn’t make an effort here.

              Sure, there are egos involved; that’s the nature of human interaction. It’s almost a certainty that all parties involved bear at least some of the responsibility for the status quo on this issue.

              Still, it seems to me that a large part of the ILA rep’s job is to deal with that, as you put it, bullshit. That’s the nature of being paid to work with volunteers.

    • mike says:

      Dave/HSR47 Not sure why you’re crediting Calguns or SAF since NRA was the one funding the case and their lawyer argued it.

      “The National Rifle Association (NRA) funded the plaintiffs’ legal battle. Paul Clement was the lead attorney in the case and argued it before the Ninth Circuit.”

      Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/13/nra-wins-big-concealed-carry-gun-case-in-petura-v-/?page=1#ixzz2tFQbM8iY
      Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

      • HSR47 says:

        “Not sure why you’re crediting Calguns or SAF since NRA was the one funding the case and their lawyer argued it.”

        Because I actually didn’t know that, and because the poster I replied to implied that the NRA had little-nothing to do with it. Sure, I was lazy, but I was inclined to believe the other poster was correct due to what I have seen from the NRA in Pennsylvania. My experience with them here is that they’re like Obama: they like to take credit for other peoples’ successes while blaming others for their failures.

        Not that it excuses the above, but I’m extremely biased against the NRA, largely because I feel that they have given me horrible service on a fairly consistent basis (plus the Frenchman doesn’t appear to think highly of NFA).

      • Dave says:

        I stand corrected. Still will continue to donate to Calguns.

  6. RG says:

    Stephen P. Halbrook and Eugene Volokh are also mentioned with regularity in the O’Scannlain portion. Very nice.

    • Sebastian says:

      Yes. I have some issues with Prof. Volokh’s seminal paper on the topic, but overall, I think he’s done a great job at pushing the federal judiciary in the right direction.

  7. BC says:

    This is a serious “holy shit” moment for gun rights in California, folks.

    Carry permit issuance is generally done by county sheriffs, and so if you go to someplace like the CalGuns forums you’ll find county-by-county reports on how much of a rigamarole getting a permit is. Out in the Central Valley sheriffs are generally pretty reasonable about it, but here, where I live, in Santa Clara County, you basically need to show that you’re carrying large sums of money around regularly as part of your job, or that you’ve been on the receiving end of credible threats of violence.

    (That, or you have to be a big contributor to the sheriff’s re-election campaign.)

    To say that this upends the applecart is mammoth understatement. Most of the coastal counties are like Santa Clara, some even worse. This decision all but forces them to interpret a may-issue law as shall-issue in practice.

    • Patrick H says:

      I always used to think that Cali was the worst for gun rights. But at least for carry rights, Cali holds nothing to NY, NJ, Mass, or Hawaii.

      • Sebastian says:

        Massachusetts differs by town as well. Most police chiefs in Western Massachusetts are effectively shall-issue. So Massachusetts isn’t nearly as bad as NJ or Hawaii. Even NY issuers in upstate jurisdictions will tend to issue unrestricted permits.

      • Greg in Allston says:

        The vast majority of cities and towns in MA are shall issue. With a few exceptions, may issue is largely relegated to the larger cities. MA is much looser than NY, NJ, CA, MD or HI. That said, MA still sucks, but it could be worse.

        • HSR47 says:

          You may not know the answer to this, but I’ll ask anyway.

          I know that some states (like SC) will allow non-residents who have bonafide property in-state to apply for resident carry permits; do you know if MA is the same?

          As it stands, I inherited a percentage of a family property in Essex county, and I’m trying to find out what my best option for getting a MA LTC is: in short, whether I need to go through as a non-resident (apply in Arlington) or if there’s a possibility I could go through Essex as a “resident” and if either, which would be better?

          • Geodkyt says:

            Um, if you have bona fide property in state, than during the periods where you are living in that state, you ARE a state resident. Period. (Yes, you CAN be a resident of two states — you just cannot be registered to vote in in two states. Hell, even ATF mentions that on their FAQ pages.)

    • Will says:

      Unless the current sheriff has changed her mind, your facts about permits ( carry lots of cash/campaign contributions) is at least 10 years out of date. She wouldn’t even renew existing permits after taking office.
      All the previous ones put lots of money into their pockets with required up front, and yearly, donations to get and keep a permit.

      500+ permits@$1000/yr keeps the campaign/retirement fund in good shape, or it used to!

      Been a few years since I’ve seen a list of permit holders, though.

      • BC says:

        She took office in 1998. I know personally two people who’ve gotten carry permits out of her in the last ten years, based on the criteria I described above.

        I won’t hold my breath waiting for you to substantiate your claims that she requires annual four-figure bribes from permit-holders. It never fails to amaze me how it’s not enough, for some people, that a politician is a bigot; they have to imagine that the politician is Tammany Hall-level corrupt, too.

        • HSR47 says:

          While I certainly agree with your sentiment, and think there is a good possibility you are largely correct, I feel obligated to point out that the plural of anecdote is not data.

          • BC says:

            And I feel obligated to point out that while “the plural of anecdote is not data” is a perfectly appropriate cautionary note to sound to someone who is trying to generalize from personal knowledge or experience, it’s a perfectly retarded thing to say to someone who offers personal knowledge or experience to refute an absolute claim.

            God save me from wannabe rhetoricians.

            • HSR47 says:

              He made an assertion (which he didn’t back up), and you said “I have two friends…”

              As far as I’m concerned, both are examples of logical fallacies. Just because you have two friends who, as far as you know, got their CA carry card from that particular official without the asserted political contribution (read: anecdote) does not mean that such a pathway to said permit does not exist.

              In other words: In a municipality that routinely abuses it’s discretion regarding issuance of carry permits, you believe your anecdote (read: “I have two friends”) completely disproves the notion that the issuing authority is swayed by the political activities/connectedness when it comes to issuing carry licenses.

              If true, your anecdote potentially does disprove the notion that such political activity/contributions are mandatory, but by itself it doesn’t refute the assertion that such contributions are a way to get a carry license.

              • BC says:

                He made an assertion

                Yes. He did. He made a categorical claim that, for the last decade, four-figure annual contributions to the Santa Clara County sheriff have been the only way to get and keep a carry permit in the county. Not just a way; the way.

                I know, for a fact, that’s BS. I said as much.

                You then accused me of generalizing from anecdote. I pointed out that I did no such thing.

                Apparently this bruised your ego, because you’re now engaged in a silly and flailing effort to pretend “Will” said something different than what he actually said, in the hope that it will somehow salvage your accusation.

                Hint: It won’t.

                Suggestion: Try applying the first rule of holes.

                • HSR47 says:

                  Suggestion: Don’t take things so personally, and don’t assume bruised egos.

                  That said, from what I have seen it seems that there is at least some basis to his claim: according to this article there were roughly 50 such permits issued to “civilians” (along with 64 more to government agents), of whom 13 had made political contributions.

                  Sure, that is also anecdotal evidence, but it’s certainly coming from a more reliable source than some guy posting online as “BC” talking about some unnamed third parties.

                  If you read my first post in this exchange again, you’ll see that I was dubious of will’s claim. I was simply pointing out that your ‘debunking’ of will relied on an anonymous source providing an anecdote about his two friends.

                  • BC says:

                    If you read my first post in this exchange again, you’ll see that I was dubious of will’s claim. I was simply pointing out that your ‘debunking’ of will relied on an anonymous source providing an anecdote about his two friends.

                    Uh, no. You very specifically accused me of generalizing from anecdote. Your first gripe about anonymous sources wasn’t until two posts and 18 hours later, after your original accusation had become untenable. I understand why you’d want to move the goalposts, but no sale.

                    As to your news article: a report that a mere 13 of 50 permit-holders are also political donors to the issuing authority pretty conclusively demonstrates that the issuing authority isn’t only giving permits to donors.

                    Which was my point from the beginning.

                • Will says:

                  @BC:

                  Did you even READ what I said? Only 7 lines of print!
                  ———-
                  “All the previous ones put lots of money into their pockets with required up front, and yearly, donations to get and keep a permit.”
                  ———-
                  THIS was smack in the middle. Do you understand what “previous ones” means?
                  I did NOT say she was doing this. I was pointing out that she was NOT following the normal routine of demanding money for permits.

                  Reading comprehension fail. Slow down, stop skimming.

                  The prior sheriff generally had around 550 permits issued. The Murky News didn’t like him, so that list always got printed whenever they thought they could do him some damage.

                  If the current one has done a turn-around, and issued a handful of permits, big whoop. No difference, except she isn’t abusing her position for profit.
                  She still wants her county residents to be unarmed serfs. Although it’s possible that that is the price she has to pay to TPTB to get re-elected. Don’t know.
                  Her deputies seemed to like her, but it has been quite a while since I was in regular contact with them.

                • Will says:

                  Seems I could have been a bit more precise, since I didn’t intend to infer that requiring political contributions was the ONLY way to get the permit.

                  The list the Murky News always printed included who donated money, and that was never a 100% correlation. It would seem logical that there would have to be wiggle room in that, to allow the argument that it wasn’t being done. Which is exactly how it was handled.
                  Easy to keep your name from being directly connected to a donation, also.

  8. Adam Z says:

    Holy Crap! This is a great first step for the People’s Republik of Kalifornia and all that are stuck there behind enemy lines. Good for all involved. I continue to learn the various aspects of the courts now when reading the commentary by Dave Kopel over on Volokh/WaPo…But still, simply WOW!

    Here’s a lemon to suck on Anti-2A advocates…!

    • Archer says:

      Yep! Removing the “may-issue” system (that’s effectively “no-issue”) from Kaliforniya is going to drop their Brady score a few points! By my calculations, the 5-point loss will produce a tie for #1 with NY state, rather than CA being by far the best state according to the Brady Bunch (and the worst state according to freedom advocates).

      That’ll get the antis’ panties in a wad, for sure and certain!

  9. Archer says:

    Oregon and Washington state are Ninth Circuit, too. Of course, we’re also already “shall-issue” for CCW permits and OC is mostly* legal, but it looks like that’s here to stay unless the full Circuit and/or SCOTUS goes against this ruling. _knocks wood_

    Go Team West Coast! :)

    —-
    * – OC is legal in WA, fully pre-empted by the state legislature. Oregon has partial pre-emption: OC is legal at the state level, but the legislature allows cities and counties to make their own rules regarding carry and discharge of firearms, and a few have.

    • Matthew Carberry says:

      Don’t forget HI, AK, AZ, MT, NV, and ID. The 9th had two “may-issue” and -two- Con Carry states amidst all the shall-issues.

      It probably didn’t hurt that the 9th was aware that shall-issue was not “new and scary.”

      • The Jack says:

        Overton Window right there.

        The more Shall Issue and Con Carry states there are the more ridiculous the May Issue states are (there aren’t any No Issue states left).

        If we assume Cali and Hawaii go shall issue then that puts May Issue states at just 20% of the US population.

        That’s pretty fringe right there.

        Course it’ll be nice if/when we get more people living in Con Carry states than May Issue states

        • Matthew Carberry says:

          Connecticut is more “shall” than “may” in practice as I understand it.

          Like some counties in Cali, upstate New York and Western Mass are fairly non-restrictive on their “may-issue”; it’s really only NYC and Boston holding those states back.

          Without them who else do they have? NJ? Maryland? Rhode Island?

  10. RP says:

    Great news. Hopefully Californians flood the Sheriffs’ offices with permit applications.

    I hate to be negative here, but how likely is it that the CA legislature passes a “may issue” bill that makes IL’s look like Constitutional Carry?

    $300+ fee, 16+ hours of training (which costs a few hundred more, and they can play games by making it exceedingly difficult to become a certified instructor), and they ban carry in every place they can think of.

    This is definitely very good news. Its reassuring the the courts can get it right. CA gun owners just need make some gains on election day to go along with the court victories.

    • The Jack says:

      Ding!

      And don’t forget other limits like “only one gun, can be carried, gun must be registered, gun must be on safe handgun roster” ect ect ect.

      • Stephen says:

        Still an awesome move in the right direction but something I was thinking of as well. A friend of mine in Cali has a permit from a will-issue county, and it is expensive to keep and maintain. So much so that it would be a barrier to all but the most committed.

        Illinois had a lot of pro-gun legislators from places other than Chicago so there were some champions there to offset the hard-core Chicago anti-gunners. Not sure you have very many champions in Cali. and the anti-gunners are danged proud of what they’ve done.

      • Matthew Carberry says:

        Those restrictions (aside from the one gun maybe) -already- apply.

        This isn’t Illinois; California isn’t starting out with a blank slate, they have a long-established carry law with state-preemption in application and a pile of case law behind it (thus CalGuns successful county by county challenges) that they were previously just fine with in terms of public safety.

        I’m not saying they wouldn’t try, but they would have to heavily modify their existing law, ticking off existing permit holders as well as anyone looking forward to being able to carry (all those military in San Diego fer instance).

        Doing so would be -exactly- mimicking MD’s admitted practice of restricting guns by restricting licensees, which this panel already criticized in this ruling.

    • Sebastian says:

      One thing to consider is this doesn’t strike any laws, and there’s already well-connected people who have existing permits and are thus invested in the existing law, and are likely to want it to remain the way it is. Illinois was a different case because they had no specific carry law, and had to make one.

      So while I wouldn’t be shocked if California decides to jigger the law, I tend to think they’ll try to use other means to show anti-gun interests they mean business. I think the carry law will remain essentially the same. What you may see, however, is individual sheriffs adding their own requirements.

      • Joe says:

        Reminds me of what I’d envision seeing if there was ever a legitimate chance we can get rid of the NFA. I suspect a lot of folks out there that spent quite a bit of money to build their Class III collections will protest against the “unwashed masses” being able to do the same without all the hoops to jump through and cash to pony up.

        • HSR47 says:

          Every actual NFA shooter I have ever met was in favor of the abolition of the NFA: especially machinegun owners.

          The people who shoot them want to greatly expand their collections, which they can’t afford to do in the current market; those who collect machineguns also generally want to expand their collections, and the abolition of the NFA will expand the supply of collectible machineguns (both from shooters selling collectables off to fund purchase of new shooter-grade machineguns, and from unregistered machineguns coming out of the woodwork.).

          In other words, the ONLY NFA owners who want to maintain the status quo are the “investment” people: in short, the people who generally aren’t part of the shooting community anyway.

        • Patrick says:

          I’ve never met a machine gun owner who wanted to keep the NFA. They spend a ton of money on something that should cost a few hundred dollars. They didn’t do it for the profit potential, they did it because they could afford to do it and wanted to do it. Is there someone who would fight it out of greed? Probably. The world is full of jerks.

          But until I start meeting lots of MG owners who oppose fixing the NFA, I look askance at this theory whenever I hear it.

        • HSR47 says:

          Also, it’s important to note that a large portion of the pool of transferable machineguns are historic guns, and as such are likely to maintain much of their inflated value in the absence of the Hughes ban.

          • Geodkyt says:

            I doubt that, considering the fairly consistant price those guns sold for for DECADES versus the rapid price rise experienced after 1986.

            Maxim 1908 MGs didn’t become THAT bloody collectible overnight in May of 1986. Also, there ARE a lot of people who own (and shoot) “historical collectible” machineguns, because that’s what they can GET — there simply weren’t that many “parts gun” Brens and MG42s built with new post-1968 receivers.

            If 922(o) disappeared overnight, I’d be willing to bet that the price of any “historical collectible” for which parts kits (sans receiver) are available or readily manufactured would cut in half. Because most of the demand pressure for a from shooters (who don’t care as much if it’s “a real MG08 mit der Kaiser’s seal on it!”) would disappear, and the supply pressure from newly made guns would fill the shooter’s needs.

      • PMain says:

        While they may “jigger” the law, the reason the SD sheriff was able to apply the “good cause” was the poorly written & unclear terms by the governing state law. The good news is there is already plenty of case law the limits localized rules/laws, all changes will have to come from a state level. Given the track record of recent laws being struck down as unconstitutional & the after-effects of McDonald, not to mention the abject stupidity of CA legislators, whichever direction they decide to go will probably be knocked down or not signed into law by Gov. Brown. Will it be immediate change, probably not, but this ruling has strengthened the pro-2a’s side here in the People’s Republic.

        We can all pray that none of the Heller 5 retire until the “bear” portion is defined by SCOTUS. Another Obama appointee will spell disaster for every citizen throughout the nation.

    • California is already may-issue. This decision tells them that won’t work anymore.

      Yes, they can make it expensive. But imagine if a permit to publish a newspaper cost $10,000 a year. Do you think the courts would accept that?

      • RP says:

        I definitely think the courts would allow excessive fees.

        PA’s fee is $20 for a license to carry with no training requirement, and we have 1 million license holders.

        If the fee was $300 or $400 with a few hundred more for training, I’m confident we would be no where near 1mm license holders.

        $10k is way out there, but they can do a lot to suppress gun ownership with fees the courts are likely to be ok with.

        • HSR47 says:

          It seems to me that even in regards to fees there is a point where the courts will see our side. I suspect that point is between an average cost of 500 per year and an application cost of 10,000.

      • Geodkyt says:

        Matter of fact, ISTR a SCOTUS opinion on the validity of charging people to exercise constitutional rights, and the decision was that the government can charge a fee sufficient to pay for the legitimate government purpose involving that particular exercise of that right, but no more.

        Not just enumerated ones — IIRC, the case at hand concerned allowable fees to charge for a marriage license, and the decision was they could charge enough to pay specifically for the cost of administering the issuance of marriage licenses, but could not charge more to cover the general costs of running the Clerk of Courts office, since that was charging people to exercise a constitutional right in order to pay for things unrelated to the practice of that right.

        Don’t recall the case cite, unfortunately. . .

  11. JC_VA says:

    Checked MDA’s Facebook page. Strangely didn’t see any mention of this on there. Wonder why, oh why?? :)

    Good job to Clayton et al for getting your mentions in the decision!!

    • Sebastian says:

      Hard to spin a pretty straightforward loss, isn’t it? Disappointment: they better get used to it.

      • Patrick says:

        There certainly was not much in there for them to spin. As a matter of fact, the ruling pretty much openly calls their previous Heller spin (concealed carry language) a bunch of BS.

  12. Joe says:

    I like to keep events like this in mind whenever someone brings up the “just move to a free state” argument. Nothing is better than beating the gun grabbers either legislatively or through litigation in their own backyard.

  13. TS says:

    Popping the good stuff tonight in celebration.

    So when should I apply for my permit? Do I need to wait?

    • Sebastian says:

      I believe the case is now remanded to lower court. They would have to apply the remedy. Once that happens, it’s a good time to apply. I believe. I don’t know as much as about these kinds of things as I should.

    • Patrick says:

      Apply if you want, but don’t expect the magic slip of paper for at least a year.

      If they ask for an en banc review, it’ll be at least a year. If they do not and try to skip to SCOTUS, it’ll be more than a year. If the SCOTUS picks up another case in the interim (Drake, for instance), it’ll still be June 2015.

      We’ve been here before. Celebrate openly, but don’t expect anything to move fast or to move certain.

  14. todd says:

    News from the front, the Sheiff is going En Banc.

    But I urge all of you to share Sebastian’s post on FB with a happy valentines day message to the Moms, XXs & OOs here you go. . . .

  15. Greg in Allston says:

    I think that this decision out of the 9th will open the doors for a full court press on NYC. If I were a betting man I’d wager that the USA and all of its territories and possessions will be shall issue before this decade is out.

    • Patrick says:

      If we win, I think your timeline is a good one. At the outside, it might be 2017 before the big court has no choice but to rule on something.

      I am patient, but this is sometimes a bit of a drag.

  16. Brad says:

    Great News! The end of Sean Penn May Carry policy. As in noted hothead but celebrity Sean Penn can get a permit to carry in California, but a person who is really at risk but a nobody is SOL.

    • Archer says:

      “As in noted hothead but celebrity Sean Penn can get a permit to carry in California, but a person who is really at risk but a nobody is SOL.”

      Worse than that, Sean Penn pled guilty to misdemeanor domestic assault (he was originally charged with felony domestic assault) stemming from the fiasco with Madonna in the 80s. Under the Lautenberg Amendment, that should disqualify him from gun ownership for life.

      Yet he had 65 guns and a carry permit in Kaliforniya.

      “Rules for thee, not for me.”

  17. Tony says:

    Here is a link to the SD County Sheriff’s CCW web page. They are now running a disclaimer at the top about waiting to get County counsel’s feedback on the decision. http://www.sdsheriff.net/licensing/ccw.html
    As far as excess training, fees, etc. we already have that. Total initial fees are $156.14, not including the cost of the 8-hour class from an outside vendor. And after you take the class, which includes range time, you also have to go to the Sheriff’s range (on select days only) to prove your marksmanship. You may have a maximum of three firearms on your permit and it has to list their serial numbers. Renewal required every two years. In a county with a population of around 3.2 million, there are about 750 Standard CCWs (e.g. not police or judges) currently issued. Here is a link to CalCCW’s info page on the process. Hopefully we will be updating this soon: http://www.calccw.com/Forums/county-faq/16906-updated-san-diego-county-ccw-process.html

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Great news from California! | The Arizona Rifleman - […] and McDonald, that I more or less gave up hope for those states. I am pleasantly surprised and, to…
top