Court Ruling Ends California Concealed Carry Restrictions
Earlier this year, The Shooter’s Log reported a Second Amendment rights win in California when the Ninth Circuit’s three-judge panel in Peruta v. San Diego affirmed the right of law-abiding citizens to carry handguns for lawful protection in public. San Diego County had denied lead plaintiff Edward Peruta and others a license to carry concealed, which, according to state law, required residents to show “good cause” for carrying—personal safety alone did not qualify as good cause in California.
The court disagreed and struck the highly subjective “good cause” requirement. That was a major win from a state known for being very left of center and extremely anti-gun in its politics. Of course a win for the good guys means sour grapes for the anti-gunners who immediately demanded San Diego’s Sheriff William Gore appeal the decision.
The Sheriff seems to be a true American who believes in citizens’ constitutional rights though. The Sheriff refused to intervene so the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and none other than California Attorney General Kamala Harris intervened in an attempt to stomp on the rights of law-abiding citizens.
Harris and Brady petitioned the court to present evidence in the case that would force an appeal. The court saw through the ruse however, and noted essentially that the case had begun over four years prior to the late entrants sudden urge to become involved. In the end, “the panel held that the movants did not meet the heavy burden of demonstrating imperative reasons in favor of intervention on appeal. Noting that the movants sought intervention more than four years after the case began, the panel stated that the stage of the proceedings, the length of the delay, and the reason for the delay all weighed against timeliness. In the absence of a timely motion, intervention was unavailable.”
Further clarifying the reasoning behind the court’s decision, “The panel further concluded that 28 U.S.C. § 2403 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.1 did not provide a basis for intervention because the panel’s opinion never drew into question the constitutionality of any California statute, but only questioned San Diego County’s exercise of regulatory authority under the relevant state statutes, specifically the County’s policy that an assertion of self-defense is insufficient to demonstrate “good cause” under the California statutory scheme.”
Essentially, this all means Harris, Brady and a handful of other who all sought to jump on the bandwagon after the original ruling were simply too late to the game. It is a victory and one that Second Amendment enthusiasts and the citizens of California can celebrate. This removes a major hurdle in the battle to force lawmakers and rouge leaders to recognize our natural and constitutional right to bear arms and self-defense.
What do you think of California’s gun laws?
The following forms will need to be printed out and brought with you to the qualification/class:
Please fill out the CA DOJ affidavit and legal contract prior to class.