Shall Issue In California?
In one of the most
anti-American States in the U.S. The communist tyrants in Sacramento may just
have to allow all citizens to exercise their U.S. Constitutional right to bear
arms… Yes! On a public street, with bullets and everything… Di Fi will mess her pants!
By de Andréa
November 15 2014 |
|
Well
it’s about time folks! California and
other states denying the issuing of CCW concealed carry permits to law
abiding American citizens is and has been indistinguishable to the blatant
violation of the Second
Amendment and the understanding of the common defense in Article 1 section 8
of the US Constitution for too
long.
The following is reprinted from the NRA ILA
|
|
California: One Step
Closer to Shall Issue!
Federal Appeals Court
Denies California Attorney General’s Bid to Overturn NRA Supported Legal
Victory in Right to Carry Case
A monumental
February 14, 2014 ruling from the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals in the NRA sponsored case of Peruta v. San Diego County found that the San Diego County
Sheriff’s policy of refusing to issue licenses to carry firearms in public
unless an applicant could demonstrate a special need beyond the right of
self-defense was an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment. NRA News has
produced a great video and America’s First Freedom magazine
also published an enlightening article about the case.
The San Diego
Sheriff decided not to appeal the ruling. But in response to this tremendous
pro-Second Amendment decision, California Attorney General Kamala Harris and
some gun ban advocacy groups asked the court to let them into the Peruta case as “parties” so they could try
to get the three judge panel decision overturned by an 11 judge “en banc” panel.
Today the Ninth Circuit rejected those requests. In a relatively lengthy published order, the Court explained why it exercised its discretion to deny the Attorney General’s and gun control groups’ eleventh hour attempt to enter as untimely. The Court also importantly held that the Attorney General is not entitled to intervene because the Peruta case does not implicate the constitutionality of any state statute, but rather only challenges San Diego’s specific policy for issuing carry licenses.
The California
Attorney General’s next action will determine whether the Peruta case ends here. She could seek
review of the denial of her request to intervene in the appeal by an en banc
panel of the Ninth Circuit or by the U.S. Supreme Court. If Attorney General
Harris is successful in overturning the Court’s order and is allowed to
intervene in the Peruta case, the Ninth Circuit Court
judges will then vote on whether to re-hear the case en banc. Should they decide
to do so, the court will either uphold the current decision supporting the
Second Amendment or overturn it. They could, however, simply vote not to
rehear the case, allowing the three judge panel decision to stand. If the
Attorney General successfully appeals for intervention, the attorneys for Ed
Peruta and the other plaintiffs will be asking the judges to do just that.
Whatever the Ninth Circuit ends up doing in such a circumstance, either side
would almost certainly petition a loss to the U.S. Supreme Court. NRA
attorneys have prepared and posted an explanation of the en banc review process online for a description of
the various machinations in this process.
There is yet
another twist to this tale. Even if the Attorney General does nothing and
the Peruta decision stands, pending requests for en banc
review in similar cases that benefitted from the work done in the Peruta case could potentially imperil
the Peruta ruling. Both the County of Yolo,
California, in the case of Richards
v. Yolo County, and the State of Hawaii, in the case of Baker v. Kealoha, have
already petitioned for en banc review of the Ninth Circuit’s rulings in those
cases essentially saying they lose because of Peruta. If those petitions
are granted, the Peruta opinion will be in jeopardy of being
overturned, just as if the Peruta opinion itself was being reviewed by
the Court.
Supreme Court Bound?
The Peruta decision creates an opportunity for
the U.S. Supreme Court to settle some unresolved Second Amendment issues that
desperately need resolving. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed
with the principles, though not the specific details, of the Peruta ruling in another NRA-supported case
of Shepard v. Madigan and the related case of
Moore v. Madigan. In these cases challenging Illinois' previous policy of
not allowing citizens to bear arms in public, the Seventh Circuit Court held
that prohibiting any form of carrying arms in public was unconstitutional.
Rather than risk having that ruling confirmed, Illinois did not seek Supreme
Court review. Meanwhile, three other Circuits have gone the opposite
direction and held that there is no right to bear arms outside the home: Kachalsky v. Cacace in the Second Circuit (New York), Drake v. Filko in the Third Circuit (New Jersey)
and Woollard v. Gallagher in the Fourth Circuit (Maryland).
The Supreme Court was asked to review each of those cases, but declined to do
so.
With this split of opinions among the federal Circuits, the U.S. Supreme Court could take the Peruta case to resolve these critical Second Amendment issues, but the California Attorney General would need to act first to make that possible.
A Court Decision Already Paying Dividends
The most common
method used nationally by states and localities to selectively deny a person
their Second Amendment right to carry a firearm for self-defense is to create
a subjective licensing prerequisite. Requiring a demonstration of “good
cause” or its equivalent before a license will be issued is such a method,
because, if you have to show “good cause,” then you can be forced to prove a
special “need” to carry a firearm. This creates a subjective system prone to
political cronyism and corruption, and that’s the way California’s “good
cause” system has been working for years. Reform is long overdue.
As a result of the Peruta decision, several California counties that had policies similar to San Diego’s have changed those policies from a restrictive “good cause” standard that few could meet, to one that accepts general self-defense as “good cause,” which most anyone can meet. Orange and Ventura counties are among the California jurisdictions that have changed their ways since the Peruta decision came down. Previously, applicants had to show proof of specific threats, such as a police report or a protective order, to prove they were in immediate danger before they could get a license. Now merely asserting a desire for “self-defense” is generally accepted as “good-cause” for getting a license in those counties. If the Peruta decision remains unchanged, all of the states and territories in the Ninth Circuit would also have to review their license issuance policies, and revise them to conform to the Ninth Circuit’s Peruta mandate. The Ninth Circuit includes Alaska and Arizona (“constitutional carry” states), Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington (“shall issue” states). It also includes Guam, which has already changed its policy in light of Peruta. And it includes California and Hawaii, the outliers. These two states have laws making concealed carry a privilege that can be withheld by local governments, instead of a right. We need to hold onto this great court victory so that these policies go into effect throughout California and the entire Ninth Circuit!
But the Peruta decision’s persuasive influence is
not limited to the Ninth Circuit territories and states. Recently, in the
case of Palmer v. District of Columbia, a
federal court relied heavily on the Peruta decision as precedent for its opinion striking down DC’s total ban on the
public carrying of firearms. Significantly, the ban at issue in Palmer was
more extreme than the California policy challenged in the Peruta case. Nevertheless, the Palmer court
cited to Peruta extensively, suggesting that the
D.C. court is warning D.C. lawmakers that they should not adopt a California
style “good cause” licensing scheme, because it will face the same fate as
the one struck down in Peruta.
Without the Peruta opinion as precedent, it is doubtful
that the DC court would have gone so far.
Help NRA to Help You
You can assist in the fight to defend gun owners’ rights in California courts by donating to the NRA Legal Action Project today. For a summary of some of the many actions the NRA has taken on behalf of California gun owners, including the tremendous recent victory in the Peruta case click here. Second Amendment supporters should be careful about supporting litigation efforts promised by other individuals and groups without access to the necessary funding, relationships, firearm experts and experienced lawyers on the NRA’s national legal team. The NRA’s team of highly regarded civil rights attorneys and scholars has the resources, skill and expertise to maximize the potential for victory.
End
Thanks for listening – de Andréa
If you agree please pass this article on to everyone on
your email list. It may be the only
chance for them to hear the truth.
Copyright © 2014 by
Bottom Line Publishing, All Rights Reserved - Permission to reprint in
whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment