Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Ray Nagin goes down | Main | Thoughts on the 9th Circuit case -- where do we go from here? »

9th Circuit reverses Peruta v. San Diego, strikes down "may issue"

Posted by David Hardy · 13 February 2014 11:52 AM

Opinion here!!!!

California's handgun carry permit system says a permit may issue for "good cause," with a definition that is essentially "some special and exceptional reason beyond the average person's carrying for self-defense." The Circuit panel holds that a constitutional right cannot be so arbitrarily restricted. It's the first time a Circuit has accepted that (to my mind, very strong) argument. The opinion also accepts that the right to arms extends outside the home.

Hurrah!

Hat tip to reader Gene Hoffman, of Calguns Foundation.

Update: two of the three judges signing the opinion are Clinton appointees! (Correction: one of them is). Another update: correct, the Clinton appointee dissented. I missed that -- don't think I've ever seen a case laid out as majority opinion-list of counsel-dissenting opinion.

· Chicago aftermath

16 Comments | Leave a comment

epnurse | February 13, 2014 12:29 PM | Reply

Wow.

Where's the "Like" button?

Robert | February 13, 2014 1:22 PM | Reply

Are you sure about the makeup of the panel? The opinion says it was written by O’Scannlain with Callahan joining and Thomas dissenting. According to Wikipedia, O’Scannlain was appointed by Reagan, Callahan by G.W. Bush, and Thomas by Clinton. It looks to me like it broke along the expected political lines, and that doesn't bode well for a potential en-banc reargument.

Clayton E. Cramer | February 13, 2014 1:27 PM | Reply

And the decision cites two different law review articles by me. I may have trouble getting out the door because of swollen head syndrome.

Jim | February 13, 2014 3:03 PM | Reply

Just think Clayton, over a decade ago I phoned you up to tell you the good news that the RI Supreme Court had cited you, and the bad news that it was in the dissent. At the time, you were thrilled! Look how far you have come since then!

Dave | February 13, 2014 5:02 PM | Reply

This has ramifications for New York in particular. This opinion is at variance with the 2d cir. It is a good argument and now, hopefully, will get to the USSC. New York, and some other states have gotten away with cavalier disregard for their citizens rights.

Dan Marucci | February 13, 2014 5:59 PM | Reply

I don't think this was a CALGUNS foundation case. In fact, I thought CGF wanted nothing to do with this one. They fought to have their case separated.

Jim March | February 13, 2014 6:53 PM | Reply

OK, this has implications for the Drake case from NJ which has lost at their circuit panel and is trying for the Supremes. I think the odds of the Supremes taking Drake just got turbocharged now that there's a circuit split wider than the Grand Canyon if it had been repeatedly nuked.

If the Supremes don't take Drake my prediction is San Diego will try for En Banc review at the 9th but will NOT go to the Supremes, because gun-grabber strategy has to be to keep a carry case away from the Nine Robes in DC until one of the McDonald Five dies.

If Peruta stands in the 9th Circuit it will impact Hawaii, Guam, some other small islands out there :).

Also: Cali doesn't allow any carry whatsoever by out-of-state US citizens, and that is flat banned in Ward v. Maryland 1870 and Saenz v. Roe 1999 - esp. where a basic civil right from the Bill of Rights is concerned.

Flighterdoc | February 13, 2014 9:51 PM | Reply

And when you have lost the Ninth Circus....

Barbara Haney replied to comment from Clayton E. Cramer | February 14, 2014 1:54 AM | Reply

Congratulations, and the ego is warranted. It is a good decision, and knowing that your work was cited lets you know you are making a difference, even if it is with research rather than other ways.

Fyooz | February 14, 2014 9:51 AM | Reply

there is a circuit split, and the Peruta ruling dissects those of the other circuits. worth the read.

wrangler5 | February 14, 2014 11:18 AM | Reply

Anything in CA law that will prevent SD County (and other anti-carry counties around the state) from adopting, say, Chicago's "shall issue" regime, with its fees, training, range time, etc. requirements?

Matthew Carberry | February 14, 2014 1:19 PM | Reply

wrangler,

As I understand it counties are allowed to set their own terms for having your application approved (background checks, letters from friends, good cause, etc) but the actual permit -costs- and training requirements are set by state law without county discretion.

George Rosenblatt | February 14, 2014 4:13 PM | Reply

I called the Sheriff Department today and they told me they are still using the same criteria as they have been and are going to appeal to the next court.

Michaelq83 | February 14, 2014 7:18 PM | Reply

Is there a stay on this ruling? As I understand it if there isn't, then the county would have to begin issuing permits according to the new rules or risk violation a court order.

GarySanDiego | February 16, 2014 9:27 AM | Reply

Peruta went as expected. Lately, all 2nd amm votes are political. Heller won due to 5 Bush/Reagan appointees vs 4 Obama/Clinton appointees. Peruta won due to 2 Bush/Reagan appointees vs 1 Clinton appointee. Thus proving you must be a Republican-appointed judge to accurately undertand the definition of the english words "keep and bear".

old Guy replied to comment from GarySanDiego | February 17, 2014 9:09 AM | Reply

It really has nothing to do with accurately understanding as much as they are elites whom wish to control the peons and peons with control are harder to control.

Just look at the drug cartels in Mexico and the recent news that individuals are arming themselves and the Government is looking the other way

Leave a comment