NOTHING IS GOING TO CHANGE AND NO FLOOD OF PERMITS ARE GOING TO BE APPROVED.....and this is why.
Ca Penal Code Section 12050
12050. (a) (1) (A) The sheriff of a county, upon proof that the person applying is of good moral character, that good cause exists for the issuance, and that the person applying satisfies any one of the conditions specified in subparagraph (D) and has completed a course of training as described in subparagraph (E), may issue to that person a license to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person in either one of the following formats:
The Subsections to this article address other issues but
Paragraph A is the guiding directive. The KEY word in this
paragraph is the word “MAY”....the code says the chief LEO
“MAY” issue a permit. It does not say “SHALL”. All the
9th circus courts ruling did was to delete the phrase regarding “good cause” from this code. It does not change
the word “MAY” to “SHALL”. Only the legislature can make that change. Unless and until such a change IS made, and that is VERY unlikely California remains a “MAY ISSUE” state not a “SHALL ISSUE” state. That means that the decision to issue or not issue is at the SOLE discretion of
the chief LEO involved. The recent court decision ONLY means that said LEO may not use the phrase regarding “good
cause” as a reason to refuse to issue. He can still refuse
to issue a permit....and he isn’t required to give a reason.
Good legal analysis of the decision, but it does give CCP applicants a “cause celebre” to take to the State Assembly, using the 9th Circuit’s decision as a supporting element in clarifying the existing Code Section of 12050.
Given that the decision came from the Nutty Ninth, it was an impressive victory for our side. If the Leftists in the Assembly keep the law from being changed, it pits them against their one-time top legal ally in the state.
Our side has got to be smarter and more aggressive in keeping the California Left in check, at all levels. Good legal teams will ensure that we can cause the Left a boatload of trouble, as considerable cost and time loss to them.
The momentum has temporarily swung to our side on the CCP issue, so let’s not drop the ball thinking that we have won the war. NVSCANMAN has done us all a great favor by pointing out the limits of the court’s decision and what must be done to correct it.
Hats off to him/her.
Good legal analysis of the decision, but it does give CCP applicants a “cause celebre” to take to the State Assembly, using the 9th Circuit’s decision as a supporting element in clarifying the existing Code Section of 12050.
Given that the decision came from the Nutty Ninth, it was an impressive victory for our side. If the Leftists in the Assembly keep the law from being changed, it pits them against their one-time top legal ally in the state.
Our side has got to be smarter and more aggressive in keeping the California Left in check, at all levels. Good legal teams will ensure that we can cause the Left a boatload of trouble, as considerable cost and time loss to them.
The momentum has temporarily swung to our side on the CCP issue, so let’s not drop the ball thinking that we have won the war. NVSCANMAN has done us all a great favor by pointing out the limits of the court’s decision and what must be done to correct it.
Hats off to him/her.
I think maybe that case turned actually on that word “may.” It was against the sheriff but if the “may” is struck down in San Diego it can hardly stand anywhere else in the 9th Circuit.
I disagree with your analysis.
The opinion clearly states that an ordinary person must be able to carry. If this stands, the opinion makes CA a “must issue” state rather than “shall issue”.
Now exactly what is the practical difference there?
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.