# 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:** 12\ **Page:** 8
**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:** [March 31, 2014, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/141 "2014-03-31T15:44:31Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Anything that the Ninth will rule would apply to the entire circuit, right? The licensing scheme in CA is statewide, so there is no basis for something to only apply to the County (San Diego). AIUI (and admittedly I have not followed this issue that closely) the individual sheriffs have some discretion in what factors to use in determining “need”, no? ---
**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:** [March 31, 2014, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/142 "2014-03-31T16:12:24Z")
They do - but the case is challenging that discretion. Peruta was both a facial and as-applied challenge, IIRC. They chose San Diego for its strategic value but it could have been any of the non-issuing counties. ---
**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:** [March 31, 2014, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/143 "2014-03-31T16:48:51Z")
Then they may be hedging in case the facial challenge fails. ---
**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:** [March 31, 2014, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/144 "2014-03-31T17:17:11Z")
But see, the NRA has already won in the 9th. There’s no need to hedge. It’s a done deal. The only way it gets overturned is if the 9th grants intervenor status to the State, the State appeals en banc or petitions for cert, and one of those efforts is successful. The NRA could oppose the intervenor status by the State, and if the NRA is successful, then this case is over, permanently. That’s why it’s odd that the NRA is not opposing intervenor status of the State. ---
**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:** [March 31, 2014, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/145 "2014-03-31T17:18:14Z")
The county didn’t request _en banc_ review? ---
**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:** [March 31, 2014, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/146 "2014-03-31T17:19:24Z")
The County stated they are not going to seek en banc, or petition for cert. ---
**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:** [March 31, 2014, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/147 "2014-03-31T19:44:39Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > The only reason I could see the NRA doing this is that they want to be the ones that go to SCOTUS rather than Drake out of NJ which is being pushed by the SAF (Alan Gura). If that’s the case, that’s pretty shit. > [@Bone](#): > > It’s the long game sure, but why give up a win when Drake has already applied? SCOTUS isn’t going to take two carry cases, so by letting this one proceed, you give up a win (in the 9th), and compete with a loss (in the 3rd) with Drake. It’s really about in-fighting among the gun rights advocates camps I think. The NRA did the same thing when Heller was making it’s way through the system - they tried to moot Heller several times, only to have it be pushed by the SAF and Gura. > > That has been my primary reason for not being able to support the NRA. They should take the win, and let Drake proceed. I think you might be right. We are all familiar with the NRA’s attempts to undermine Gura before Heller and I don’t think they like having Gura out doing things without so much as a “by your leave” They supposedly kissed and made up soon after Heller but I don’t think its really sticking. I also get the impression that Gura is much more sane than some of the NRa folks. He doesn’t strike me as one of those “defense against tyranny” types. I don’t particularly support the NRA either but I get a membership every year because buying membership gets you free admission at a lot of gun shows and the line to buy a ticket at some gun shows was over an hour long last year. ---
**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:** [May 6, 2014, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/148 "2014-05-06T23:26:31Z")
Updates: Drake was [denied](http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/drake-v-jerejian/)cert yesterday. So they let stand a clear circuit split between the 3rd and 7th. I actually don’t know what this means, but the [9th circuit has ordered](http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2014/05/01/10-56971%20-%20Order.pdf) the San Diego sheriff to \*“notify this Court in writing within fourteen days of the date of this order of his position on the pending motions to intervene or that he takes no position.” \* Also, Gore is _“further ordered to respond within fourteen days of the date of this order to the suggestion that this case is moot.”_ It seems like the court is asking if the decision in Peruta should be mooted since Gore said he’d issue permits after the court decision is final. That makes no sense to me so hopefully I can find some analysis. It seems to be saying that San Diego lost, so they will comply, but since they will comply, the original issue is mooted and therefore not a valid decision? That all seems very circular. ---
**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:** [November 12, 2014, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/149 "2014-11-12T20:49:03Z")
Today in a 2-1 decision out of the 9th circuit, the motion to intervene on Peruta by Attorney General Harris, The Brady Campaign, California Police Chiefs’ Association and the California Peace Officers’ Association was [denied](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-12/california-loses-bid-to-revisit-ruling-striking-gun-rules.html). > [@](#): > > The two-judge majority in today’s ruling said that Harris, along with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the California Police Chiefs’ Association and the California Peace Officers’ Association, waited too long to ask to join a lawsuit that had been filed four years earlier. The judges also said their original ruling only applies to San Diego County and doesn’t address the entire state’s regulatory framework for concealed weapons, as Harris contended. Somewhat a mixed bag. It’s great that the motions were denied. The case isn’t being requested en banc. It’s bad that the court essentially limited this decision to San Diego County. I’m not sure about the timing of when this takes effect - have to read more on that. Other cases that relied on Peruta (Baker in Hawaii and Richards in Yolo County) should be in tact now, though those were both unpublished so I imagine only have impact to their localities. This does create a split between circuits and I’m wondering if SCOTUS is ready to take on “may issue”. It really sucks that my county still has their same policies in place. I applied after Peruta and the application was simply returned to me unprocessed. The sheriff’s office said they aren’t taking new applications until Peruta is resolved. I think that in itself is probably unconstitutional but it’s CA and the state is fucking stupid. ---
**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:** [November 12, 2014, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/150 "2014-11-12T20:57:56Z")
Well, now you know why the NRA wasn’t resting on its (or Gura’s) laurels. ---
**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:** [November 12, 2014, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/151 "2014-11-12T21:16:59Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Well, now you know why the NRA wasn’t resting on its (or Gura’s) laurels. I’m not following what you are trying to say here. What it probably means is that there will need to be additional litigation in CA as a facial challenge, or on a county by county as applied challenge. That seems like a waste of time and resources to me, and I’d like to get my permit sooner rather than later. Of course when each county loses they will be paying court costs so maye there’s an incentive for counties to modify their practices. All current carry cases that have requested cert have been denied. If there is a cert request this may be taken up, but I wouldn’t think that’d be in the curren term. That means that even if cert is requested, and it’s granted, a SCOTUS decision could take as long as June of 2016. I’m not sure what happens in the interim. ---
**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:** [November 13, 2014, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/152 "2014-11-13T17:21:00Z")
I forgot to consider what this decision means to the other two cases, Baker in HI and Richards in CA and for some reason thought those were settled. Both have requested en banc review, so now the 9th circuit can determine if it wants to rehear those. [An article at Volokh](http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/12/the-ninth-circuit-and-the-right-to-carry-guns-good-bye-peruta-hello-richards-and-baker/) briefly discussed this which was a good reminder. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278.md?page=7)