Concealed Carry of handguns imminent? * September 6th, 2010 4:02 am PTVery likely by Thanksgiving. San Diego, like Los Angeles, issues very few licences to carry a concealed weapon. Licenses issued by both jurisdictions are capricious and arbitrary. In the case of Peruta v San Diego, the Sheriff's department favored a private organization called the Honorable Deputy Sheriff's Association. Not a single member in good standing who has applied since 2006 has been denied a license.
On Friday, the attorneys for Peruta filed a motion for a partial summary judgment. If the court grants the motion it would immediately require that all issuing authorities in the Southern District of California issue licences to carry a concealed weapon to everyone who applies and meets the non-discretionary requirements of obtaining a license or, hopefully, everyone who is at least 18 years of age and legally entitled to own a firearm as was found in Heller and McDonald.
It took the Court two months from the date that San Diego County Sheriff Gore filed his motion to dismiss the case and Judge Gonzalez issued her denial of the motion, and that included breaks for Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Years. The Court's denial of motion to dismiss was 18 pages long. Judge Gonzalez has already laid out the legal foundation for her decision. An order granting the partial summary judgement will most likely take less time.
So how does this affect those of us who don't live in the Southern District? It potentially affects everyone who lives in the 9th Circuit. Some more than others given that the only two states in the 9th Circuit which severely restricts carrying a loaded gun are Hawaii and California. Alaska and Arizona don't even require a license to carry a handgun, openly or concealed.
Assuming that there isn't something unusual in the summary judgement granted by the court it will provide a mechanism for everyone who lives in the 9th Circuit to obtain a CCW. Here is how. Once the judgement is granted, apply for a license to carry a concealed weapon and put "self-defense" as the reason. If you live in the Southern District and are denied your license, or the more likely scenario that the issuing authority just sits on your application, go to Judge Gonzalez's court. If the summary judgement comes with an injunction she will have most likely already spelled out the punishment for violating her order (e.g., $50,000 a day fine for every day the issuing authority is in violation). Fines quickly add up, especially in these days of declining tax revenues. The issuing authority will quickly comply. If one lives outside the district then one can immediately apply, or more likely, wait for someone else to apply and be denied a license based on self-defense. That person can then file his own case in his own district based upon equal protection via the Peruta case. Properly worded, this case will be more quickly decided. A Federal judge for your particular district (given the nature of the case, most likely the Chief Federal Judge) will either rule for you or against you. If against you then you are on a fast track to appeal. If you don't have the determination then wait. Someone else will.
http://www.examiner.com/la-in-los-angeles/concealed-carry-of-handguns-imminent 
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
