While what you say is technically true, I don't think it is practical. The District Courts will be bound by a precedent which is worded in such a way that no discretion will be permitted for law-abiding adults.
This means that a person who is denied for any other reason which would not pass Constitutional muster should be a shoe-in for the same summary judgement which has been ordered in the Peruta case.
Law firms with some time to sell ought to be willing to sue, asking for the expenses to be covered by the reluctant Sheriff in question. If the District Courts do what they ought to do, this would be practically free money.
I believe that the anti-gunners would rather wait than have this issue decided by the present Supreme Court. They would rather hope for the chance that Obama will get to appoint a replacement for one of the Heller five.
It's in the interests of we who support the right to keep and bear arms to absolutely flood the lower courts so as to get this case or one sufficiently similar before the present Supreme Court.
While the decision is a step in the right direction
it does not force a sheriff to issue. It does
remove the undue burden of “good cause” and gives people
who wish to resort to legal action an additional precedent
in their favor. However the ruling does not remove that
one all important word from the penal code....”may”.
If a sheriff denies a permit and gives a reason that is
vague, broadly worded etc. an appeal such as the one under discussion may successfully remove that impediment.
However if a sheriff merely denies the application without
stating a reason an applicant would have to sue to force
a precedent requiring a valid reason for denial. Until
such a precedent is set a sheriff merely has to say NO....
and not one word more.
I have no doubt that time will show that nothing of any substance has changed. Not until further court actions
take place and further rulings are made that give further
directions to a sheriff directing them to approve applications unless he can come up with a good reason for
denial. I have zero faith that the legislature will change
the wording of the law to “shall”....they may not even be bothered to remove the phrase “good cause” regardless of this ruling.