California AG to contest recent 9th Circuit Court Decision

[wuluf]

Kamala Harris is asking for a full "en banc" hearing of the San Diego vs. Peruta ruling. A 3 judge panel voted 2-1 that California's "may issue" concealed carry permitting system, together with a ban on open carry, was unconstitutional. This is what she said when calling for a re-hearing of the suit:
"If the 9th Circuit’s ruling is allowed to take effect, officials throughout the state could be required to issue concealed-carry permits to individuals based on nothing more than the applicant’s assertion that they wish to carry a gun for self-defense,” Harris said.

Well, DUH?

There it is, in the open for us all to see....

[mcmar]

It is apparantly obvious that the Kalifornia AG has never read the 2d amendment...

[nawilson]

I would bet that the AG either carries a gun herself or has body guards that do. Then again... she is so very much more important that any of the little people.

[jag312]

Harris used to be the District Attorney in San Francisco. What do you expect?

[Kentucky Dave]

After reading the AG's petition, I sincerely hope that the Court will see it for the poorly crafted argument it is. It lacks the eloquence and pointed argument which the original appellate decision has.

On the other hand, I believe that because the decision is so well crafted, it might be benenificial to have it go to the US Supreme Court. I don't see how it could be overturned.

The fact that San Francisco has ONLY two outstanding CCW permits (according to the recent count I read) speaks volumes. It is inconceiveable on the face of it that in a county of over 800,000 people, there are only two people who could give reasonable "good cause" assertions in a bid to obtain a CCW permit.

[jtpur]

I am willing to bet that if all 11 members of the court hear the appeal the illogical words of the AG will make logical sense to the majority of the court and this is because the 9th Circuit by definition is illogical.

[Harrison]

Nothing is simple these days.

[ladder13]

Bless her heart.

[Fishslayer]

Was yesterday the deadline for the Court to decide "yay or nay" on this appeal?

Originally Posted by wuluf

"If the 9th Circuit’s ruling is allowed to take effect, officials throughout the state could be required to issue concealed-carry permits to individuals based on nothing more than the applicant’s assertion that they wish to carry a gun for self-defense,” Harris said.

Well, DUH?

There it is, in the open for us all to see....

No kidding. I wish it was going to be this easy. Of course, to listen to these people one would think I can go into my local Walmart & walk right out with a fully automatic Glock high powered military style assault rifle with deadly military style 30 cap magazine clip & a shoulder thing that goes up.

They'e still talking about background checks and gun show loopholes, for Pete's sake. They want to bring visions of crazy felons rampaging through the streets to John Q. Public.

I can guaran-darn-tee you that they will make the process as slow and complicated as the law allows. I was told by someone who should know that the interview process has things backed up to October so far.

[Mike Grasso]

The next hurdle will be the hard one.

"Good Moral Character"

This will be one that splits hairs.

You have 4 speeding tickets....

You have a DUI....

You had a restraining order....

You went bankrupt.....

Past history as a gang member with no arrests...

What indicators in your past will allow the Background Investigator to make a informed decision in respect to your dealings with authority and responsibility...

This is going to be a very difficult road to navigate.

Mike

[wuluf]

Ok, putting on my Pollyanna hat: the situation is much better than it was just a few years ago. Shall issue has come to more states, we have the Heller and Parker decisions and now two wins at the 9th Circuit. Time seems to be on our side..

[italiansport]

The bottom line in States like California is they want all privately owned firearms confiscated and they will continue to erode the 2nd Amendment until they reach that goal. It is an essential goal in order to completely "socialize' the State and remove any remaining vestiges of freedom. An armed citizenry could at some point in time rebel and upset this goal.
Jim

[Kentucky Dave]

Originally Posted by wuluf

Ok, putting on my Pollyanna hat: the situation is much better than it was just a few years ago. Shall issue has come to more states, we have the Heller and Parker decisions and now two wins at the 9th Circuit. Time seems to be on our side..

I tend to agree. As flakey as CA is, the reality of the growth of Shall Issue in the vast majority of states without dire consequences, the recognition (finally) of Article II rights by the Supremes... People will bring lawsuits and continue to win. As the pendulum swings in support of CCW, eventually a municipality is going to get hit by large damages when someone who in any rational area, including other areas in CA, would have been issued a permit, was denied, hurt/killed and family sues. Of course that hasn't happened yet, but given the legal surroundings, it isn't impossible. As things are heading, civil rights actions regarding CCW could become a weapon against hold out, elitist CA counties.