State News & Gun News > NRA & National Gun News

"NRA-Backed Case A Benchmark Win in 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals"

(1/3) > >>

Paladin4CA:
From:
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/news-from-nra-ila/2014/2/nra-backed-case-a-benchmark-win-in-9th-us-circuit-court-of-appeals-%281%29.aspx?s=&st=&ps=

NRA-Backed Case A Benchmark Win in 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
Posted on February 13, 2014

Peruta, et. al v.San Diego County Protects Right to Bear Arms in Public Places for Self-Defense
Fairfax, VA – The United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit today ruled in favor of the right of law-abiding citizens in California to carry a firearm outside the home for self-defense. California law allows local governments to issue concealed and open carry permits, but generally prohibits the carriage of handguns in public places. The San Diego County Sheriff’s office further restricts gun permits only to law-abiding citizens who can prove “good cause,” meaning they have to show they faced a specific threat to their safety above what the general public faces.

The court ruled San Diego County’s gun regulation scheme unconstitutional. Under the ruling, law-abiding citizens in California would be allowed to carry a handgun for self-defense in public places, not just in their homes.

In addition to supporting the case financially from the beginning, the National Rifle Association filed a friend of the court brief in support of the plaintiffs.

“No one should have to wait until they are assaulted before they are allowed to exercise their fundamental right of self-defense,” said Chris W. Cox, Executive Director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “The U.S. Supreme Court has already affirmed our Constitutional right to Keep Arms, and today, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the right to Bear Arms.  Our fundamental, individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms is not limited to the home,” concluded Cox.

From the Court Ruling:

Because the Second Amendment “confer(s) an individual right to keep and bear arms,” we must assess whether the California scheme deprives any individual of his constitutional rights. Heller, 554 U.S. at 595. Thus, the question is not whether the California scheme (in light of San Diego County’s policy) allows some people to bear arms outside the home in some places at some times; instead, the question is whether it allows the typical responsible, law-abiding citizen to bear arms in public for the lawful purpose of self-defense. The answer to the latter question is a resounding “no.”

-NRA-
Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America's oldest civil rights and sportsmen's group. More than five million members strong, NRA continues to uphold the Second Amendment and advocates enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation's leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the armed services. Be sure to follow the NRA on Facebook at www.facebook.com/NationalRifleAssociation and on Twitter @NRA.

Paladin4CA:
While this is a GREAT and important win, it may get appealed to an en banc panel of the 9th Circuit, or to SCOTUS itself, so it may not be having an impact right away. IIRC, San Diego has 2 weeks to decide whether to ask for en banc review.

You can hear attorney Chuck Michel discuss this case on Cam & Company at:
http://www.nranews.com/cam/list/cam-company and click on the image of Mr. Michel in column on the left.

Cbmarine:
@Paladin4CA, thanks for posting and the prognostication.  A small request: do a mitzvah for the hoi polloi and embed a definition of the arcane terms, en banc (full panel of judges). 

Question: if denied or declined (think those are the correct outcome terms), the case can proceed to SCOTUS? If upheld, then what? Illinois redux?

(probably more than one $5 word misused :) )

Paladin4CA:
This case was decided by a 3 judge panel of the 9th Circuit. We won 2 to 1.

Usually, before appealing to SCOTUS, the loser will ask for an en banc review of the decision (and SCOTUS expects them to do that). In the 9th, an en banc panel of judges will have 11 judges + the Chief Justice. In theory, it could have every active judge in the 9th Circuit (something like 20 or 30 so judges), but I don't think that has ever been done before.

If the 9th decides to allow en banc review, the loser there can ask for cert. from SCOTUS (i.e., ask SCOTUS to take the case).

If the 9th decides NOT to allow en banc, San Diego has 90 days from then to ask for cert. from SCOTUS.

Rumors are some county sheriffs, ones that aren't ultra left wing, may liberalize issuance within the next few weeks. If SD does not request en banc, or request it, but gets denied, other sheriffs may liberalize issuance even if SD asks for cert.

Bottom line: this is good news, great opinion, but the fight isn't won yet. Despite that, some sheriffs in CA may go "virtual" Shall Issue by accepting mere "self-defense" for Good Cause.

Right now, out of 58 sheriffs, about 35 readily issue CCWs. The ones that don't are along the coast from Marin down to the border. That's where all the population is and that's where all the crime is. Things may change in the next month or two: 2 weeks for the en banc filing deadline and then a few more weeks for the 9th to decide whether to take it and for sheriffs to decide to change policies (or not). I'm hoping that we go from 35 counties readily issuing CCWs to 45+ Getting the probable last holdouts (SF, Alameda, CoCoCo, Santa Clara, LA, Orange, SD), will require this and/or other cases (Drake or the NRA's TX cases), to get a win at SCOTUS.

Cbmarine:
Thanks. Great info and explanations. Now if you can put pressure on the AG to provide reciprocity. 

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page