Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: nvscanman
nvscanman said: "However if a sheriff merely denies the application without stating a reason ..."

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.

19 posted on 02/24/2014 2:20:06 PM PST by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]


To: William Tell

The courts ruling specifically stated that permits were
being denied and the reason stated was the applicant did
not show “good cause”. The 9th shot down that one single
reason and that is ALL that this ruling does. It will
require further legal appeals and activity to further
widen any changes to the current Penal code statute that
still states “MAY” issue.


21 posted on 02/24/2014 4:29:36 PM PST by nvscanman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson