Which California are you referring to? I believe that it IS exactly the case that California says you cannot carry openly or concealed unless the Sheriff agrees that you have some special reason to carry. In most populous counties in California there basically is no reason good enough to be granted a permit.
Last I heard, there are a total of 52 carry permits issued in my county of over three hundred thousand people.
Yes, what you write was the situation before this case but since the Ninth’s ruling California can’t say one can’t carry both openly and concealed. California can prohibit people from carrying openly OR concealed but not both at the same time. And the individual sheriffs can’t ask for a special reason beyond simple self defense as a condition for a gun permit.
That’s what the opinion from the two says. That the sheriff can’t ask for some special reason for you to concealed carry anymore. He can ask you to fill out “this” form or “that” form or undergo additional background checks but the issue of whether or not the sheriff could demand from you some special reason for you to carry concealed before issuing a permit is decided. And decided in favor of the plaintiff by the Ninth circuit.
That’s not what this dissenting opinion is about. The dissenting opinion is saying that these two (Thomas and Gorsich) believe the SC should hear and decide upon the larger issue of how much every state can regulate the public (either concealed or open carry) bearing of arms. The Ninth refused to decide that part of the case because that’s not what the plaintiff specifically asked, and the SC has refused to decide that issue for the same reason. And that rationale is what Thomas and Gorsich are disagreeing with; they say the question deserves a final ruling, regardless of the fact the plaintiff didn’t specifically ask for that larger question to be asked.
But since the ruling by the Ninth, the sheriff can no longer, as a condition to issuing a permit, require someone give a reason beyond self defense for wishing to carry a concealed weapon. It’s all right there in the dissenting opinion posted earlier, the history of this case.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-894_p86b.pdf
See page two of the document I linked, and read from where it starts, “In a thorough opinion, a panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed. 742 F. 3d 1144. ...”
742 F. 3D 1144 was the original case brought and decided for the sheriff. If you read further you’ll see that the Ninth reversed this ruling and that’s what currently stands since the court won’t hear this particular case (which is good) but also the larger issue of how much a state can regulate the public bearing of arms remains unanswered as well. Which is what Gorsich and Thomas are complaining about here.