# California's refusal to allow carry of firearms: Unconstitutional **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 13, 2014, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278 "2014-02-13T20:25:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2014, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/61 "2014-02-14T19:39:07Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > This time I actually see where we disagree on hypocritical. I cannot enter the courthouse, a public place to exercise constitutional rights of redress, petition and speech, etc. with a weapon. Yet they say that it is a constitutional right to carry in a public place. The courthouse is the ultimate public place, particularly in open court. (Keep that in mind you daring do romantics on this, Valentine’s Day, what a place to get caught gettin it on!) That seems to me to be pretty hypocritical of the judges to say you can carry it in public, but can’t sit in the gallery with Ol Betsey by your side. Heller acknowledged the existence of sensitive places. Thus far, courthouses are in that category. There is nothing hypocritical in saying that carry in general is part of the right in the 2nd while at the same time certain restrictions are permissible. No right is absolute and there is no contradiction here. Saying you can’t carry in a courthouse is not the same as saying you cannot carry anywhere, as was the case for most in CA. Keep in mind, in courthouses there are active security present, metal detectors to screen visitors, and lockers available to store weapons, etc. The courthouse takes an active role in the security of all present. I’m curious if there could be considered a duty of care assumed by the court for security actually. In any event, this is not the case in a general public setting, parks, malls, etc. > [@](#): > > The reason the NRA doesn’t allow guns at their conventions is because they are afraid someone will misuse one. Isn’t it? No. See post #49 and #51 above. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2014, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/62 "2014-02-14T19:58:59Z")
I am informed that I am misinformed on NRA rules. Their rules do allow carry in their conventions. Good to be corrected. As for Heller’s “sensitive places” that is a load of hypocritical bullshit designed to protect the safety of public people in public places doing a public job. I’m well aware of courthouses and their varying rules, I go into courthouses quite regularly as part of my job. I don’t see why a fellow sitting on a park bench isn’t entitled to the same protection as a judge sitting on a judicial bench with an armed bailiff by his/her side. I don’t see why I as a citizen can’t openly carry by the fellow on the judicial bench when I can openly carry past the fellow on the park bench. The principle of equal protection and everyone is the same is rather vigorously ignored. The fact of the matter is that the government goes to great lengths to protect itself, but not much for the people they are supposed to protect, namely the public. I cannot bring an audio recorder into a courthouse, or a camera, but I can bring a cell phone that does both. I cannot bring nail clippers into a courthouse or anything that _might_ be used as a weapon, such as a small pair of scissors. But I would certainly have occasion to have legitimate uses of all those items within the building, such as copying a page in book with a camera, taking a statement in a hallway, cutting a piece of paper anywhere, or clipping my nails in the men’s room. I can’t do any of those things in the courtroom because some of them might disrupt proceedings, and I get and accept that. But having an audio recording device quietly running all day isn’t one of them. I’ve seen judges go nuts when they learn someone in the gallery unfamiliar with the rules has been quietly recording. Why? It is just a public proceeding of a government entity. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2014, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/63 "2014-02-14T21:47:00Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > It doesn’t matter, since illegal guns are primarily stolen from people who own them legally. If they didn’t have those guns then criminals wouldn’t be able to steal them, or have much incentive to get guns otherwise. Do you have a cite for that? [This says that only 10-15% of guns used in crimes are stolen.](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html) [This estimates that over 45% of crime guns are from straw purchases.](http://smartgunlaws.org/straw-purchases-policy-summary/) Another significant source are FFL diversions of guns. Looking for a good cite but here is a [1994 ATF study (pdf)](http://policeissues.com/Sources.pdf), Sources of crime guns in Los Angeles, California that talks about it. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2014, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/64 "2014-02-14T23:20:38Z")
A couple lines pulled from the opinion: > [@](#): > > That’s because, with Heller on the books, the Second > Amendment’s original meaning is now settled in at least two relevant respects. > First, Heller clarifies that the keeping and bearing of arms is, and has always been, > an individual right. See, e.g., 554 U.S. at 616. Second, the right is, and has always > been, oriented to the end of self-defense. See, e.g., id. Any contrary interpretation > of the right, whether propounded in 1791 or just last week, is error. I particularly like how it talks at length about the racist roots of gun control that is often overlooked. The beginning of a long segment about gun control targeting various races: > [@](#): > > It apparently followed from this premise that, as > constitutional non-citizens, blacks lacked not only the right to “full liberty of > speech in public and private” and “to hold meetings upon political affairs” but also > the constitutional right “to keep and carry arms wherever they went.” Id. at 417 > (emphasis added). It was in large part in reaction to Dred Scott’s logic, on which > the Black Codes of the post-war South plainly rested, that the Reconstruction > Congress sprung into action. Heller, 554 U.S. at 614. It was, of course, no > coincidence that the codes, designed to deny the privileges of constitutional > citizenship to the freedmen, took aim at that most fundamental right of keeping and > bearing arms. Clayton E. Cramer, The Racist Roots of Gun Control, 4 Kan. J.L. & > Pub. Pol’y 17, 20 (Winter 1995) (“The various Black Codes adopted after the Civil > War required blacks to obtain a license before carrying or possessing firearms or > bowie knives. . . . These restrictive gun laws played a part in provoking > Republican efforts to get the Fourteenth Amendment passed.” Of course, Slaugherhouse later obliterated the intent of the 14th amendment here. > [@](#): > > 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. See Heller, 554 U.S. at 634 (“The very enumeration of the > right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of > Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is > really worth insisting upon.”). In response to the fact that some permits are issued: > [@](#): > > Because the Second Amendment “confer[s] an individual right to keep and bear > arms,” we must assess whether the California scheme deprives any individual of > his constitutional rights. Heller, 554 U.S. at 595. Thus, the question is not > whether the California scheme (in light of San Diego County’s policy) allows some > people to bear arms outside the home in some places at some times; instead, the > question is whether it allows the typical responsible, law-abiding citizen to bear > arms in public for the lawful purpose of self-defense. The answer to the latter > question is a resounding “no.” And again as in the previous NRA vs BATFE case, the court draws comparisons to the 1st amendment: > [@](#): > > To reason by > analogy, it is as though San Diego County banned all political speech, but > exempted from this restriction particular people (like current or former political > figures), particular places (like private property), and particular situations (like the > week before an election). Although these exceptions might preserve small pockets > of freedom, they would do little to prevent destruction of the right to free speech as a whole. And addressing those that would rather see the 2nd amendment removed: > [@](#): > > Nonetheless, “the > enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices > off the table. . . . Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is > outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, > where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun > violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not > debatable is that it is not the role of this Court [or ours] to pronounce the > Second Amendment extinct.” Id. at 636. Nor may we relegate the bearing > of arms to a “second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules > than the other Bill of Rights guarantees that we have held to be incorporated > into the Due Process Clause.” There’s a lot of meat here. I hope Drake goes to SCOTUS, just so the ruling in the 9th isn’t stayed and CA can start figuring how to handle being shall issue. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/65 "2014-02-20T00:16:36Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > So the people who get stabbed or clubbed to death are not “real people”? Or is it simply that their suffering doesn’t matter? Utterly, completely, and totally missed the point. I actually feel bad for you if that’s how you go around living your life. You must be constantly angry and afraid all the time. > [@Flyer](#): > > As far as other methods go, here’s one–actually enforce current laws, rather than watch people make straw purchases and then watch those criminals take those guns into Mexico. And which laws do you think are under-enforced and would support a robust effort to make into a national policy? ---
**Author:** ![ThisUsernameIsForbidden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b4bc9f/32.png) [@ThisUsernameIsForbidden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThisUsernameIsForbidden)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/66 "2014-02-20T02:41:16Z")
I am a bit disappointed with CA in this respect–carry is just too hard without something beyond the right to defense. Most counties (the ones where you might need self defense) simply will not issue a permit unless you can show a good reason, and that’s basically what the San Diego law says. Put it this way–what the SD law says is already what the other counties already DO. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/67 "2014-02-20T14:15:52Z")
> [@ThisUsernameIsForbidden](#): > > I am a bit disappointed with CA in this respect–carry is just too hard without something beyond the right to defense. Most counties (the ones where you might need self defense) simply will not issue a permit unless you can show a good reason, and that’s basically what the San Diego law says. Put it this way–what the SD law says is already what the other counties already DO. The problem is with how the “good cause,” requirement is interpreted. In San Diego, good cause is defined by policy as “…a set of circumstances that distinguish the applicant from the mainstream and causes him or her to be placed in harm’s way.” Good cause is “evaluated on an individual basis” is found in “situations related to personal protection as well as those related to individual businesses or occupations.” Notably, a fear for one’s for “one’s personal safety alone is not considered good cause.” Open carry of handguns is not permitted. And concealed carry was permitted only very rarely, by interpreting the “good cause” as something beyond the desire for personal safety. It was the combination of those factors into a total regulatory scheme which the Ninth Circuit rejected. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/68 "2014-02-20T16:15:12Z")
> [@ThisUsernameIsForbidden](#): > > Put it this way–what the SD law says is already what the other counties already DO. The law in San Diego is no different than the law throughout the rest of the state. CA has state preemption with regard to gun laws. Cities and counties are prohibited from passing their own unique gun laws. The city of SF tries and loses in court regularly. The issue is that the law is discretionary (administered by county sheriffs) and its application is such that the the right of self defense in the 2nd is completely obliterated. Nearly all of the heavily populated counties in CA are no-issue in practice. The city of SF has one CCW holder, and that is Diane Feinstein. I think she may have let her permit lapse though. Other populated cities like Oakland, LA, Alameda, San Mateo, San Jose, all of those whose populations are in the millions or near millions have virtually no CCW holders. Unless you are a celebrity or donate a large amount of money to the local sheriff, you will not get a permit. ---
**Author:** ![thelurkinghorror](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/69 "2014-02-20T19:17:10Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > The city of SF has one CCW holder, and that is Diane Feinstein. I think she may have let her permit lapse though. She supposedly got rid of it a long time ago, but I really doubt that she is/was the only one. Certain LEOs, for example? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/70 "2014-02-20T19:21:46Z")
> [@ThisUsernameIsForbidden](#): > > I am a bit disappointed with CA in this respect–carry is just too hard without something beyond the right to defense. Most counties (the ones where you might need self defense) simply will not issue a permit unless you can show a good reason, and that’s basically what the San Diego law says. Put it this way–what the SD law says is already what the other counties already DO. IIRC, most of the northern counties operating under the same law are “shall issue” in practice. A resident of that rural county can get a CCW for self-defense purposes and then carry throughout the state, even in San Diego, San Francisco, LA, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/71 "2014-02-20T20:36:15Z")
> [@thelurkinghorror](#): > > She supposedly got rid of it a long time ago, but I really doubt that she is/was the only one. Certain LEOs, for example? LEOs have a brass pass. No CCW necessary. ---
**Author:** ![thelurkinghorror](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/72 "2014-02-20T20:54:04Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > LEOs have a brass pass. No CCW necessary. Ah, thanks. [This article](http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Concealed-gun-permits-under-scrutiny-4470923.php) from last year suggests that SF has some but very few. Alameda and Solano Counties have 165 and 320. Kern has 3547 CCWs. It is a little unclear then, if the PD issued ones are still good. SF is weird in that it is a city-county. [Here](http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2011/10/number-of-concealed-carry-permits-by.html) suggests it went from 1 to 0 in 2011, although Feinstein supposedly didn’t renew hers sometime before 1995. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/73 "2014-02-20T21:17:49Z")
> [@thelurkinghorror](#): > > [This article](http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Concealed-gun-permits-under-scrutiny-4470923.php) from last year suggests that SF has some but very few. Alameda and Solano Counties have 165 and 320. Kern has 3547 CCWs. It is a little unclear then, if the PD issued ones are still good. SF is weird in that it is a city-county. Each PD has the ability to issue CCWs, but in practice most do not. There are several locations that are both cities and counties. They are separate jurisdictions. Most PDs will defer to the County Sheriff. PD issued CCWs are the same as County issued CCWs. They are typically valid for 2 years, and good throughout the state. Some counties or issuing agencies may place restrictions on the permit, but that is also county by county, and any restriction must be on the face of the permit. Of course, even if the restriction is not per se binding, the issuing authority can revoke the permit for any reason since the issuance is completely discretionary. This will be litigated later. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2014, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/74 "2014-02-21T04:57:31Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Its too bad, any restriction of firearms would be a net good in reducing the amount of death and harm caused by guns. We had an Assault weapons ban for a decade with no discernible effect on gun violence. > [@](#): > > Before the pro-gun people do their victory lap though, please, suggest a way to cut down on gun violence that’s not simply “more guns”. Though I feel bad for myself and those of my political bent, the real people who will be suffering are those who will be shot by guns. Do something about that before you gloat You do realize that gun violence has been dropping over the last few decades despite an increase in the number of guns, don’t you? Don’t get too upset, the litigation we see these days is only targetting the most restrictive laws. DC had a virtual total ban on owning guns so after Heller, they made getting a gun so onerous that legal gun ownership (while skyrocketing, is not common at all). I suspect that California will respond to this ruling with some sort of licensing scheme. This ruling doesn’t imply that gun regulation is impermissible. You can still have licensing and registration of handguns and other things that would reduce gun violence. > [@wolfpup](#): > > Given the appalling rate of gun violence in the US, which is not even in the same order of magnitude as any other first-world nation on earth and is more in line with that of a war zone, it would not seem unreasonable to place the imperative of public safety and the right to not be shot to death over the presumed right of every yokel to walk around in public with a loaded handgun. Gun violence is at about the lowest level it has been in our history. > [@](#): > > Not that there is a hope in hell that the present Supreme Court, in its current makeup, would ever see it that way. Are you implying that the same court that upheld Obamacare is too lopsided and partisan to be neutral about these things? > [@Bone](#): > > “bear” must mean something. Good for you Bone. And just in time for the Glock 42. Don’t skimp on the holster. > [@Capt\_Kirk](#): > > IANAL but I just finished reading the whole decision. I highly recommended it. Some highlights. I like the comparison to first amendment rights. If second amendment cases are subjected to the same scrutiny as first amendment cases, I see a LOT of the less rational gun regulations disappearing. > [@wolfpup](#): > > Comparison of U.S. gun homicides to other industrialized countries:… > > Handguns murdered: > > - 373 people in Germany > - 151 people in Canada > - 57 people in Australia > - 19 people in Japan > - 54 people in England and Wales, and > - **11,789 people in the United States** > > In rankings of firearm death rates, the US certainly ranks … Why are you limiting this to firearm death rates? Are you under the impression that those deaths would never have occurred if guns weren’t available? > **[List of countries by intentional homicide rate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_rate)** > > The list of countries by homicide rate is derived from United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) data, and is expressed in number of deaths per 100,000 population per year. For example, a homicide rate of 30 out of 100,000 is presented in the table as "30", and corresponds to 0.03% of the population dying by homicide. The reliability of underlying national murder rate data may vary. Only UNODC-vetted data is used in the main table to maintain consistency. In some cases, i Homicide rates ... This gives a better view on murder rates, the US murder rates are still pretty high. > [@Stringbean](#): > > Does anyone know how many of those 11,789 murders were committed by individuals with legally-obtained, licensed handguns? Most were committed by people who cannot legally own a firearm. It is alrgely criminals killing criminals. > [@pkbites](#): > > That’s not even half of how many people are killed in cars every year. And it’s a mere percentage of how many are killed by medical mistakes. Its still 2/3rds of all murders. We can’t really just handwave away gun violence, can we? > [@](#): > > In a nation of roughly 314 million that is an insignificantly miniscule amount. If you put it that way, then ALL murders represent an insignificantly minuscule amount of the population. Why should we bother trying to stop them? > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > It doesn’t matter, since illegal guns are primarily stolen from people who own them legally. If they didn’t have those guns then criminals wouldn’t be able to steal them, or have much incentive to get guns otherwise. cite please. IIRC, most criminals get their guns “on the street” or from friends and family. And “on the street” usually means straw purchasers. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Because guns are holy and we certainly can’t blame _them_ for it. We’ll just blame the dead people instead. :rolleyes: I think the point is that shitty poor neighborhoods have high crime rates and high murder rates generally. Most gun violence is criminals shooting criminals, gangsters shooting gangsters. > [@Bone](#): > > That’s an interesting take on constitutional jurisprudence. What other constitutional rights should be overlooked in the name of a greater public interest, and who gets to decide that? > > _The public really thinks you’re guilty, so you don’t get a lawyer. > The public really wants to know what you have to say, now you have to incriminate yourself. > The public wants to find out what’s in your house, warrants are an anachronism._ Well, you obviously didn’t notice the asterisk the founding fathers put next to the second amendment. > [@Bone](#): > > And again as in the previous NRA vs BATFE case, the court draws comparisons to the 1st amendment: I hope this is the beginning of a trend. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/75 "2014-02-24T16:16:25Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Good for you Bone. And just in time for the Glock 42. Don’t skimp on the holster. The Glock 42 is illegal to purchase from an FFL in CA. It does not satisfy the requirements of the roster. No new model semi automatic pistol has been added to the roster since mid-2013. If the roster isn’t defeated, there will be no new semi automatic pistols available for purchase in CA. Besides, I prefer the Glock 26 myself (9mm). I was hoping for some type of ruling like this (though I thought it would be Woolard or Kachalsky so I was wrong on those) by June of 2014. I anticipated and purchased early, as well as a nice IWB holster, since those take months to make and ship. * * * An update, Sheriff Gore in San Diego has [announced that he would not seek an en banc hearing of the 9th circuit.](http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/21/san-diego-sheriff-will-not-seek-9th-circuit-en-banc-in-peruta-right-to-carry-case/) There are three more possibilities that can happen: [ol] [li]Any sitting judge of the 9th circuit can request an en banc hearing. For it to be granted there would need to be a vote of all sitting judges and a majority decides. If that happens, and an en banc is granted, the ruling is vacated in the interim. This must happen by March 6.[/li][li]Sheriff Gore can file a petition for cert. He has 90 days to do so. That would be May 14. The current ruling is unaffected unless SCOTUS both grants cert, and reverses or modifies the result of the opinion.[/li][li]SCOTUS can take the Drake case. The outcome of that case would impact this case. The current ruling would be unaffected unless and until SCOTUS both grants cert to Drake and the outcome is unfavorable to this ruling. It is expected SCOTUS will respond to the Drake cert petition this week.[/li][/ol] My application is ready. Some counties in CA still require a character reference, or a psych eval. Those will be litigated later, as will the high price of the permit itself (about $500). Orange County has already said as a result of this ruling they will begin issuing permits. San Diego as well, though they are only accepting 4 applications per day. Which means for all the people who want to apply, it will likely be 2019 before they can get an appointment. That will need to be litigated too. Each win means less money for cities and counties who push gun control, and more money to litigate. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2014, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/76 "2014-02-25T03:10:53Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > Cars and guns are not the same thing, in case that wasn’t obvious. Cars are made to transport people from one place to another. Guns are made to kill living things. > > As for 11k plus deaths in the US every year, when already put in context of other similar nations, your statement has to be the single most stupid **and** loathsome statement I’ve ever seen on the SDMB, and that is a major accomplishment. Take a bow. > > TSS, liberal proponent of gun owner rights. Follow your own logic. A motor vehicle, designed to safely convey an occupant from Point A to Point B, kills more people per year than the item _actually designed to kill people._ ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2014, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/77 "2014-02-28T16:57:30Z")
Update: Today, CA State Attorney General filed a [motion to intervene (pdf)](https://ecf.ca9.uscourts.gov/docs1/009025808466) in the 9th circuit decision. I’m not sure the Attorney General has standing here when the State wasn’t party to the lawsuit, and the NRA lawyers say they will contest the motion. [More here.](http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-guns-harris-20140227,0,5239459.story#axzz2ucMSdrfe) It seems that this effort is meant to influence the circuit court to persuade one sitting member to ask for en banc as I mentioned above in option #1. They have another week. Meanwhile, counties like Orange (who previously had a more permissive issuance policy but reversed upon election of their current sheriff) and Ventura have said they will begin issuing permits based on the Peruta decision right away to show respect for the court’s opinion. In those counties, applications for permits has [surged](http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/02/27/surge-in-concealed-weapon-permits-follows-california-court-second-amendment/). > [@](#): > > More than 500 applications have poured in to the Orange County Sheriff’s Department in just two weeks — roughly the total number of applications filed in 2013, a spokesman said. If March 6 passes and there is no en banc, there have been predictions of a sharp uptick in the number of permit holders. Current number of permit holders is about 56K. I’ve seen estimates that first year increases could go above 1 million. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2014, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/78 "2014-02-28T19:36:48Z")
The state couldn’t have intervened in the original lawsuit because it wasn’t a named defendant. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2014, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/79 "2014-02-28T19:59:00Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The state couldn’t have intervened in the original lawsuit because it wasn’t a named defendant. I believe they could. Gore and SD County asked the state to intervene on multiple occasions before the judgment. They are able to do so before the ruling because the decision affects the statewide licensing scheme. That and the fact that CA has statewide preemption for gun laws like this. At least, that’s based on the analysis I read. The fact they chose not to means they can’t actually file for an en banc review. Gore was the only one who could, and he declined. The only way this goes en banc is if a sitting judge on the 9th asks for it. My understanding is that that doesn’t happen often, but we won’t know until March 6. Gore can still petition for cert however - but given his unwillingness to ask for en banc, I think that is unlikely. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2014, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/80 "2014-02-28T21:57:23Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > The Glock 42 is illegal to purchase from an FFL in CA. It does not satisfy the requirements of the roster. No new model semi automatic pistol has been added to the roster since mid-2013. If the roster isn’t defeated, there will be no new semi automatic pistols available for purchase in CA. > > Besides, I prefer the Glock 26 myself (9mm). I was hoping for some type of ruling like this (though I thought it would be Woolard or Kachalsky so I was wrong on those) by June of 2014. I anticipated and purchased early, as well as a nice IWB holster, since those take months to make and ship. I’ve gone through more handguns than I care to mention (and I certainly don’t mention them to my wife), and I compared the Glock 26 to the Glock 27 (.40 cal) and bought the 27 because you can get conversion barrels for it to convert the 27 into a 9mm or a .357 sig. Its useful during an ammo shortage. YMMV. You can do the same thing with the Glock 22 (full size) or 23 (mid-size). Of course there is a reason why the 26 is more popular than the 27, he conversion barrels are an aftermarket part (most people get Wolf barrels) and some people don’t like putting non-MOE parts into their gun. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278.md?page=5)