No mistake, however the above article is mistaken in that the ruling was not against California but against San Diego County. The ruling could have future implications for California and areas under the 9th Circuit.
If I’m interpreting the legalities correctly, no state or county within the 9th district can now employ a “good cause” requirement to disallow CCW applications.
I believe that this is a very critical point.
On the surface it would appear to be a mandate to San Diego regarding what they consider "good cause", and not a ruling against the state law which permits the Sheriff to exercise discretion in requiring "good cause".
Imagine for a moment that a person applies for a permit in San Diego and for "good cause" writes, "security of a free state" on their application.
Is the Sheriff then free to reject the application? Obviously, he should not be.
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.
One possible rationalization would be to claim that the state intended the phrase "good cause" to include non-specific claims of self-defense. I'd get a kick out of hearing any state authority make that claim.
The question then arises; did the courts permit the state to be a party to this case? I have read a claim that the state was warned some sixty days prior to the oral arguments that they should consider taking part. I don't know the details of this claim.
Thus, it wouldn't surprise me at all to see the Ninth Circus re-hear the case and reverse this recent decision, sending the case spinning back to the lower courts to decide ... who knows what. It won't change the logic of the decision but will push back for another couple of years the recognition of the right to keep and bear arms in Kalifornia.