9th Circuit - "Good Cause" Requirement Unconstitutional

Yeah, it sounds like the Sheriff is going to raise the qualification bar quite a bit. We will see if anybody is able to make it through this gauntlet.

Additionally, those seeking a CCW are advised that the process for obtaining a CCW involves several steps. The application process includes a scheduled interview, payment of fees, as well as state and local background checks. Successful completion of a firearms course of training is also required. This process can take several months.
Click to expand...
 
Coyote33 said:
Thank you both.



Is there a way to find this out? Freedom Of Information Act?
Click to expand...

Knuckle Dragger said:
It's already been done. I can vouch for jar's comment. PTPs have not been issued to US citizens* in the recent past.


*PTPs can also be issued to Alien Permit holders (aka Alien FID) for the purpose of purchasing a non-large capacity rifle or shotgun.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I actually had a complaint written up and filed in suffolk superior before EOPSS coughed up the information. What a waste of my time that was but hopefully they will take us seriously in the future.
 
lancecolonel said:
Is it just me or did the sherrif's reply just beg for the legislature to make up some new laws and do it quick?
Click to expand...
Lawmakers can always pass new laws and the governor may or may not sign them. However, Gov. Brown is pretty pragmatic and I doubt he'd sign anything that would result in an obvious challenge based upon this ruling.

What's more interesting to me is that California never intervened in this case. In choosing not to bring this case forward they are effectively making the decision for the entire state.
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
You beat me to it!

My money is against the dissenting judge asking for en banc, but you never know.

But this is HUGE. The largest state in the nation has gone shall issue.
Click to expand...

I know you guys are trying but it's a kick in the nuts that CA is now shall issue for CCW and requires no license to simply "keep", but MA is still where it is.
 
PaulD said:
I know you guys are trying but it's a kick in the nuts that CA is now shall issue for CCW and requires no license to simply "keep", but MA is still where it is.
Click to expand...
CA is not "shall issue" until the issuing authorities start to obey the court order. My guess is there will be an emergency stay while the state arranges to have the ruling overturned.
 
So who could appeal? If they're not going to appeal would they choose not to so that it doesn't get to the supreme court and make all the other states comply ie ma. Would anti's pressure them to not appeal because of this?
 
Keep in mind that there appears to be a lot of gamesmanship happening with CA. The panel held back two cases. Gore has demurred appeal, leaving the Richards case as an avenue for appeal. O'Scainlan is also daring the circuit to overrule him. Brown has been shafting the legislature regularly, and in fact he rescued Perutas crappy case, by not vetoeing the open carry ban. Folks, Just sit back and watch the show.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
CA is not "shall issue" until the issuing authorities start to obey the court order. My guess is there will be an emergency stay while the state arranges to have the ruling overturned.
Click to expand...

Fair point, but they're much closer to it than MA and they don't licensing for ownership.
 
terraformer said:
Keep in mind that there appears to be a lot of gamesmanship happening with CA. The panel held back two cases. Gore has demurred appeal, leaving the Richards case as an avenue for appeal. O'Scainlan is also daring the circuit to overrule him. Brown has been shafting the legislature regularly, and in fact he rescued Perutas crappy case, by not vetoeing the open carry ban. Folks, Just sit back and watch the show.
Click to expand...

Haha... I am REALLY bad with soap opera type story lines. Well, I'm really bad with names in general, so trying to understand what you just wrote is giving me fits. Could you (or someone else) expand this a little bit for the soap opera-impaired?

Why is Governor Brown shafting the legislature by not vetoing what they themselves passed?
I think I get that this "rescued" the Perutas case that found good cause is unconstitutional, but are you saying that this is what Governor Brown wanted, that he's pro-shall issue?

What do you mean by and how is O'Scanlain (Opinion writer/member of the three judge panel) "daring the circuit to overrule him?"

And how the heck is Al Gore involved in this? lol

OK Sheriff Gore in San Diego didn't appeal this "good cause" ruling, how does that leave the Richard's ("Good moral character"?) case as an avenue of appeal, and what does that mean? As an avenue to whom, to appeal what?




(The main reason I didn't try to become a lawyer is I am, as stated, really bad at associating abstract names to things... like people. But that means I also have a really hard time associating names like "Heller" and "McDonald" to which concept they identify.)
 
Quiet said:
Why is Governor Brown shafting the legislature by not vetoing what they themselves passed?
I think I get that this "rescued" the Perutas case that found good cause is unconstitutional, but are you saying that this is what Governor Brown wanted, that he's pro-shall issue?
Click to expand...

A legislature will sometimes pass a bill, betting that it will be vetoed. This lets the legislators pander to their voting base without running the risk of actually implementing something that is unworkable or just plain stupid. "Gee, guys, we passed a bill giving everyone a free unicorn, but that evil President/Governor/whatever vetoed it. Darn!"

It's like the father who promises the kids that they'll all get ponies on their birthdays, knowing that Mom will nix it. Things get interesting when Mom says "Let's go pony shopping!" Either way, you still wind up with a lot of horseshit. [laugh]

(At least that's what I think is going on here.)
 
Last edited:
joshk1025 said:
I'm very interested in what happens in Hawaii from this case (since that's where I grew up). As this article points out, Hawaii is one of only two "no issue" states. If you think California is bad about implementing the required reforms, I bet you Hawaii will be way worse. It is a very deep blue state. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ircuit-en-banc-in-peruta-right-to-carry-case/
Click to expand...

I forget if it was mentioned in this thread, but there was a case about Hawaii captioned Baker v Kealoha that was heard by the 9th Circuit on the same day as Peruta (and Richards, another CA case). The decision in Baker hasn't come out yet, but if the decision in Peruta stands, it will definitely overturn HI's de-facto no issue law. It's possible that case could go to the Supreme Court, should SD choose not to appeal Peruta and HI decide to do so.
 
joshk1025 said:
I'm very interested in what happens in Hawaii from this case (since that's where I grew up). As this article points out, Hawaii is one of only two "no issue" states. If you think California is bad about implementing the required reforms, I bet you Hawaii will be way worse. It is a very deep blue state. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ircuit-en-banc-in-peruta-right-to-carry-case/
Click to expand...


Me too. Hawaii is the only state where someone has to sign off to allow access to their mental health records for a firearms permit. I may be mistaken, but I think it's for both pistol and rifle+shotgun.
 
Garden12 said:
Me too. Hawaii is the only state where someone has to sign off to allow access to their mental health records for a firearms permit. I may be mistaken, but I think it's for both pistol and rifle+shotgun.
Click to expand...

Do you not have to do that in Mass? I thought I did this on my recent LTC application... then again it was in Boston so [rolleyes]

- - - Updated - - -

jar said:
I forget if it was mentioned in this thread, but there was a case about Hawaii captioned Baker v Kealoha that was heard by the 9th Circuit on the same day as Peruta (and Richards, another CA case). The decision in Baker hasn't come out yet, but if the decision in Peruta stands, it will definitely overturn HI's de-facto no issue law. It's possible that case could go to the Supreme Court, should SD choose not to appeal Peruta and HI decide to do so.
Click to expand...

I had forgotten about the Hawaii case... is O'Scainnlan waiting to rule on that one in case Peruta gets appealed or something? It seems just as cut and dried as the San Diego case to me.
 
Last edited:
joshk1025 said:
I had forgotten about the Hawaii case... is the O'Scanlan waiting to rule on that one in case Peruta gets appealed or something? It seems just as cut and dried as the San Diego case to me.
Click to expand...

Only O'Scannlain knows what he's up to at this point. Some have speculated that he's holding Richards and Baker in reserve to preserve the circuit split should Peruta get taken en banc (which would vacate the panel opinion) for the conference where SCOTUS decides whether or not to hear Drake (the NJ case). Even if that's not what he's up to, it makes some sense in terms of judicial economy to wait until Peruta is final. At least in Richards there are some differences (Richards also challenges the good moral character requirement), not sure about Baker. It makes sense to only cover those other issues once it's unlikely the whole rug will get pulled out from under him by an en banc panel or SCOTUS.
 
joshk1025 said:
Do you not have to do that in Mass? I thought I did this on my recent LTC application... then again it was in Boston so [rolleyes]
Click to expand...

Not that i'm aware of, though you never know with Boston. You're probably thinking of a question 8 on the application. It asks, "Have you ever been confined to any hospital or institution for mental illness?" That is different than giving access to your personal mental health records like Hawaii makes someone do.
 
Garden12 said:
Not that i'm aware of, though you never know with Boston. You're probably thinking of a question 8 on the application. It asks, "Have you ever been confined to any hospital or institution for mental illness?" That is different than giving access to your personal mental health records like Hawaii makes someone do.
Click to expand...

Ah I see. I also read on another thread that every LTC applicant has their name run through the states mental health system to check for past ... visits.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk
 
joshk1025 said:
Ah I see. I also read on another thread that every LTC applicant has their name run through the states mental health system to check for past ... visits.
Click to expand...

IIRC DMH can only report to them things that actually disqualify you. So a voluntary commitment, or you seeing a shrink, or even being on meds from a shrink, does not get flagged by MA DMH.

-Mike
 
All that said, the non-resident app for ME includes a page releasing your mental health records. Are we not required to fill that out, or is that just for non-residents, and you're talking resident only?

Sent from this Infernal Machine
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
California AG, Kamal Harris is now seeking to intervene and have an en banc panel review the decision.
Press Release

Amici California Police Chiefs Association and California Peace Officers' Association are also petitioning the 9th circuit for rehearing en banc. Their standing is questionable.
Click to expand...

Either way, this is likely good for us. Either the en banc re-affirms the current case thus making CA and HI shall issue or they don't and it is appealed to SCOTUS.
 
Wait, "largest state"? I'd say Texas and Alaska both beat California, unless maybe you mean population.
 
soloman02 said:
Either way, this is likely good for us. Either the en banc re-affirms the current case thus making CA and HI shall issue or they don't and it is appealed to SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

I'm actually rooting for the en banc and ensuing SCOTUS appeal. This seems like a well written decision tailor made for SCOTUS.
 
bigblue said:
I'm actually rooting for the en banc and ensuing SCOTUS appeal. This seems like a well written decision tailor made for SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS will often punt when they are faced with a choice between not granting cert and allowing the status quo to prevail, and hearing a case where the rule of law will dictate an "undesired" change in public policy.

As to "largest state" - Mr. Dragger was no doubt referring to population.

My prediction is that en-banc will overturn the decision and SCOTUS will not grant cert. But then, if you had asked me what my prediction on Illinois going "shall issue" without a "not valid in Chicago" (NY style) notation on their permits, I would have told you that could never happen. Sometimes I like it when I am wrong.
 

Similar threads

Federal Judge Finds Pennsylvania Law Barring 18-20 Year-Olds from Concealed Carry Unconstitutional
Replies
0
Views
69
Reptile
Reptile
3rd Circuit Denies Rehearing In SAF Pennsylvania Gun Rights Victory
Replies
1
Views
143
oldguy68
oldguy68
District Judge: Gun Ban For Illegal Immigrant Unconstitutional
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
3K
Kurtz
Kurtz
‘Unconstitutional’: DOJ Announces Red Flag Center For Gun-Grab Operation Against Americans
Replies
16
Views
625
Nick Fury
Nick Fury
The cause of poor accuracy was the stock? Maybe……..
Replies
7
Views
317
Taipan01
Taipan01
Back
Top Bottom