Posted on 02/20/2014 1:30:56 PM PST by chrisinoc
At least one law enforcement agency in California is changing the way it grants concealed carry permits as a direct result of Peruta v. San Diego.
The Orange County Sheriff’s department is dropped the “good cause” requirement yesterday, and is adopting a policy that sounds a lot more like a voluntary “shall issue” process (my bold below):
The Orange County sheriff loosened requirements Wednesday for obtaining a concealed-weapons permit in light of a recent federal appellate court decision that deemed many urban counties in California to be overly restrictive in saying who can and can’t carry a concealed weapon.
(Excerpt) Read more at bearingarms.com ...
County Sherrifs are up for election in California in the June Primary... This is Orange County...
I believe I read, years ago, that the only country sheriff that granted us paeons conceal carry permits was Mono county. This is indeed a good development.
I guess we can rule out Los Angeles and San Francisco.
Bingo.
If we can get Sheriff Laurie, in Santa Clara, do the same that would be awesome....
Don’t see it happening....
It would be awesome if Sacto County sherrif would do same here - not holding my breath.
What do you know?
Finally a politician that can read the writing on the wall and willingly avoids unwinnable law suits.
They have removed the “good cause” excuse from the denial.
Now they will simply deny the permit without saying why.
No mechanism is in place to force them to issue a permit.
I don’t see a lot of permits being issued till the sheriff can
be held personally accountable for damages for denying a
permit without an extremely good reason for doing so.
That’s how you read the article? Really? Or did you not even bother reading? Dang!
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.