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.
I think you are completely underestimating the strength of a court decision recognizing a fundamental, individual, enumerated right.
Here's the order from the Ninth Circuit:
The district court erred in denying the applicant’s motion for summary judgment on the Second Amendment claim because San Diego County’s “good cause” permitting requirement impermissibly infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense.
REVERSED and REMANDED."
ANYTHING which impermissibly infringes is now subject to attack using this decision as a precedent. You will no longer have to prove that it's an individual, fundamental, enumerated right to bear arms ready for use in a confrontation in public.
This most definitely shifts the burden to the Sheriff to justify ANY infringement. If what you said is true, then the San Diego Sheriff could merely state, "I refuse to issue to Peruta and I won't say why". That won't cut it.
He could try to say, "I won't issue to Peruta because I don't believe that he exhibits "GOOD MORAL CHARACTER". The judge in such a case should similarly apply Peruta and grant summary judgement in such a case. Where would the state get the authority to decide that people they consider immoral don't have a Second Amendment right to defend themselves?
I doubt that even the training requirement can stand muster. It's simply not in the Second Amendment and several states get along quite well without such an infringement. If a case can be made that there is a compelling reason to require training, then the state can jolly well provide it. I don't see that happening.
My prediction is that the anti-gunners will STALL as long as possible, but here in Kalifornia the strategy that serves New York, New Jersey, and Maryland well is a huge loss for them in Kalifornia, and vice versa.
Peruta might be appealed but I doubt it enough that I filed for my permit this morning. If we need an immediate case to be filed in my county, I will be ready.