“The real effect of the ruling is that Kalifornia does not have the authority to grant the San Diego Sheriff discretion in issuing permits. The existence of a “self-defense” justification for carrying is enough even if the applicant doesn’t say so.
Others before me have pointed out a potential problem with this ruling. Evidently there are binding precedents which require the courts to include the state in any suit which challenges the Constitutionality of a state law. I don’t see how anyone can claim that taking away a state-granted power is not affecting the law which grants the power.”
I do not think this invalidates California law in any way. There are already 11 counties in California that are granting permits with non-specific “self defense” as a reason for the permit. They have been doing it for years. This ruling only requires that the County of San Diego do the same as a number of other counties in the State. The State does not have to change any laws at all.
The state law gives the Sheriff discretion to decide what is "good cause". The court just took it away.
Do the other counties have the authority to change their policy and eliminate non-specific self-defense? The law would suggest they do. The law is wrong and has been judged so by the Ninth Circuit.
Are you claiming that the state law which includes "good cause" was written with the intention of including non-specific self-defense?
Are you claiming that most of the counties in the state are not in conformance with the state law when they deny permits for self-defense?
A state law which explicitly permits violations of a right, even if that law also permits recognition of the right, is unconstitutional as far as I am concerned.
Imagine a law which permitted counties to require "good cause" to purchase a newspaper. Would the fact that most counties grant permission make the law constitutional?
After my last posting, I remembered another legal distinction that is probably relevant.
I believe the distinction is that some laws are unconstitutional "facially" and some are unconstitutional "as applied".
The state law in question is, in my opinion, definitely unconstitutional "as applied". The law allowed the San Diego Sheriff to deny a permit to Peruta, the plaintiff.
Also, I believe that the law is "facially" unconstitutional, as it requires a person to justify the exercise of a right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
Anti-gunners never claimed that the state of Kalifornia has the power to deny the individual right to keep and bear arms. Their claim has always been that no such right exists. Since Heller and McDonald they can no longer make that claim. Their whole house of cards has been destabilized and will fall.
The CA DOJ standard application requires statement of good cause. Each county sheriff is allowed to use their own discretion in interpreting what is or is not good cause.
This ruling voids the statewide template, but still leaves the discretionary powers of the sheriff largely intact.