Peruta v. County of San Diego (CCW Case)

[frogman68]

nope, they said that the San Diego construction of "good cause" is unconstitutional. as it expressly excluded self defense as good cause. Different, but important. Remember, other counties in California consider "good cause" to include self defense.

ok the article is wrong it doesn't say county says California's law was struck down

 

[ma_deuce]

Hard to believe this decision came out of the 9th Circuit.

 

[Mr H]

Hard to believe this decision came out of the 9th Circuit.

Hope you're not complaining!!!

 

[wolfwood]

Yeah, yeah. I argue with them all the time at work. I haven't been right yet, but that hasn't stopped me yet.

100% serious question - I thought CA9 applies horizontal precedent, so why would Peruta not affect Baker, unless the opinion get held pending en banc?

Basically you have to have a case or controversy for a federal court to overturn a law. So even if a identical law is struck down in another jurisdiction a federal court has no right to overturn a law in a separate jurisdiction. That is why Saipan and America Samoa still have complete bans on owning handguns. Baker takes on Hawaii's carry law and was heard on the same day as the Peruta panel. It is a much more restrictive law and will be judged based on its own merits by the same judges that rules on Peruta

 

[Southwest Chuck]

didn't the ninth just say California's concealed carry law is unconstitutional? I am shocked that the ninth would do that

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/02/1...ssed-by-fed-appeals-court/?intcmp=latestnews#

nope, they said that the San Diego construction of "good cause" is unconstitutional. as it expressly excluded self defense as good cause. Different, but important. Remember, other counties in California consider "good cause" to include self defense.

Did you miss this little nugget?

Understanding the scope of the right is not just necessary, it is key to our analysis. For if self-defense outside the home is part of the core right to “bear arms” and the California regulatory scheme prohibits the exercise of that right, no amount of interest-balancing under a heightened form of means-ends scrutiny can justify San Diego County’s policy.

San Diego only APPLIED the California Regulatory Scheme though their policy !!!

Am I misinterpreting this?

 

[Gryphon]

I am shocked that it took the 9th to school the 4th on a fundamental and Constitutionally protected right, other than the 1st A. Even so, I am not complaining!

 

[teratos]

I am shocked that it took the 9th to school the 4th on a fundamental and Constitutionally protected right, other than the 1st A. Even so, I am not complaining!

I like that little twist.

 

[yellowfin]

Does this make it more likely that the SCOTUS will hear the Drake case?

Yes, absolutely it does.

Right now I expect my CA friends are guzzling a keg of beer, a case of Buffalo Trace, and roasting several beef rib roasts.

 

[Tyeraxus]

Basically you have to have a case or controversy for a federal court to overturn a law. So even if a identical law is struck down in another jurisdiction a federal court has no right to overturn a law in a separate jurisdiction. That is why Saipan and America Samoa still have complete bans on owning handguns. Baker takes on Hawaii's carry law and was heard on the same day as the Peruta panel. It is a much more restrictive law and will be judged based on its own merits by the same judges that rules on Peruta

But CA9's jurisdiction includes Hawaii, right? So the ruling from Baker that the 2A protects the right to bear arms outside the home will be applied to the Baker case, yes?

I get that it doesn't automatically strike down Hawaii's law, but it gives the panel little choice in finding the restrictive (effectively "no-issue") scheme unconstitutional, right?

 

[PJDiesel]

nope, they said that the San Diego construction of "good cause" is unconstitutional. as it expressly excluded self defense as good cause. Different, but important. Remember, other counties in California consider "good cause" to include self defense.

But, NO Counties in MD do.

God I'd love to see this materialize, Woollard was agonizing to watch die.

 

[teratos]

But, NO Counties in MD do.



God I'd love to see this materialize, Woollard was agonizing to watch die.

SCOTUS has to address this split at some point.

 

[AC20814]

how long is it likely to be before we find out about en banc?

 

[ma_deuce]

Hope you're not complaining!!!

Absolutely not. It's just that the 9th is generally known as the most hare-brained liberal of the federal circuits.

 

[clandestine]

This going to SCOTUS really scares the living crap out of me. Especially with Roberts.

It needs to be done but I don't know if the outcome will be what we expect. SCOTUS is always vague except when it comes to liberal cases.

 

[danb]

Trying not to get hopes up of course.

 

[CrazySanMan]

This is outstanding news.

 

[Patrick]

Did you miss this little nugget?


San Diego only APPLIED the California Regulatory Scheme though their policy !!!

Am I misinterpreting this?

They call out the California system and law explicitly, and clarify that any system of evaluation that prevents carry by lawful people is an over-exercise in regulation. So if a county accepts defense for G&S, then they are OK as long as their other provisions allow carry in a realistic form. So technically G&S exists, but only if it is objective and allows self-defense to be used.

This going to SCOTUS really scares the living crap out of me. Especially with Roberts.

It needs to be done but I don't know if the outcome will be what we expect. SCOTUS is always vague except when it comes to liberal cases.

Yup, but it has to happen eventually.

 

[yellowfin]

This going to SCOTUS really scares the living crap out of me. Especially with Roberts.

It needs to be done but I don't know if the outcome will be what we expect. SCOTUS is always vague except when it comes to liberal cases.

It is a bit scarier since he sold us out over Obamacare, I agree.

 

[AC20814]

This going to SCOTUS really scares the living crap out of me. Especially with Roberts.

It needs to be done but I don't know if the outcome will be what we expect. SCOTUS is always vague except when it comes to liberal cases.

better now than wait for Hillary to nominate another Sotomayor.

 

[Southwest Chuck]

Thanks Patrick, but isn't that splitting hairs? For the record, G&S is a MD term. Here in CA it's Just Cause and Good Moral Character.