The case challenges the application of California Penal Code section 12050, which allows a sheriff or police chief to issue a permit where â€œthe person applying is of good moral character, that good cause exists for the issuance,â€ and that the person is a resident of that county.Â Under this law, sheriffs and chiefs of police often implement subjective standards for â€œgood cause,â€ as well as residency requirements that are not constitutionally permissible.Â Â The Complaint was originally filed in October 2009 by a local activist. It survived a motion brought by the County to dismiss the case.Â In the Order denying that motion, the Judge confirmed that the constitutional claims were valid, and that the Countyâ€™s arbitrary permit issuance policy may very well be unconstitutional.Â The amended Complaint adds both more plaintiffs and more legal claims for relief. Documents relating to the case are posted at www.calgunlaws.com.
This would be another case, in addition to Palmer in the DC Circuit, being argued by Alan Gura, that involves the right to “bear” arms, rather than just to keep arms. The cases are a bit different due to the different type of law that they are challenging. The CRPA/NRA case would seem to hinge on the arbitrary and capricious nature of issuance, while the Palmer case in DC hinges on their now allowing a non-resident of DC any means at all for carrying a firearm.