No, that's how the county and sheriff applied it. The statute begins:Here's where I get lost. Doesn't the statute say something about a person's good cause being able to distinguish themselves from the general populace, which is how they decided unspecific/generic/precautionary self defense wasn't good enough in the first place?
Cal. Penal Code § 26150.(a) When a person applies for a license to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, the sheriff of a county may issue a license to that person upon proof of all of the following:
(1) The applicant is of good moral character.
(2) Good cause exists for issuance of the license. . . .
Peruta at p. 3. So, perhaps the opinion could have been just a bit clearer this was the policy they were quoting, not the statute.California law delegates to each city and county the power to issue a written policy setting forth the procedures for obtaining a concealed-carry license. Id. § 26160. San Diego County has issued such a policy. At issue in this appeal is that policy’s interpretation of the “good cause” requirement found in sections 26150 and 26155: “[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” and may arise in “situations related to personal protection as well as those related to individual businesses or occupations.” But—important here—concern for “one’s personal safety alone is not considered good cause.”
would make our violent crime rate look a lot like Switzerland. (Where, by the way, most households keep a REAL assault weapon, and a cache of ammo).
Number of Concealed handgun permits in Florida reaches 1,177,051 in September 30, 2013
With 2,541,460 permits issued and 168 revoked for revocations for firearm violations, the rate of Florida concealed handgun permits that have been revoked for firearm violations is only 0.0066 percent. Since January 2008, there have only been 4 revocations for any type of firearms related violation -- an annual rate of about 0.696 revocations. With an average of about 850,000 permit holders over that period, that is an annual revocation rate of 0.00008 percent, or less than one ten thousandth of one percent.
However, he also refers to a previous footnote where he opines that there would not be much left of the "good cause" requirement of the California statute if a constitutional self-defense interest" constituted good cause.And any plans by California’s Attorney General to intervene and seek rehearing might be complicated by the panel’s belief that its decision did not implicate any state statutes.
Looking at what little you've quoted it's not nearly as compelling as the Texas study. They broke down the rate of 21+ holders, and non-holders, males, and females, and types of crimes that would result in the revocation of a Texas CHL.This data is very compelling
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, THOMAS, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence’s Motion to Extend Time for Filing a Petition for Rehearing En Banc and Stay the Issuance of the Mandate, and Proposed Intervenor State of California’s Motion to Extend Time to File a Petition for Rehearing En Banc and Stay Issuance of the Mandate, both filed with this Court on February 27, 2014, are GRANTED. Any proposed petitions for rehearing filed with this Court by February 27, 2014 will be considered timely if this Court grants the petitioners’ concurrently filed motions to intervene. This order does not extend the time for filing petitions for rehearing for any petitioner who did not move to intervene by February 27, 2014.
Submission with respect to the pending motions to intervene is deferred pending further order of the Court. Issuance of the mandate is stayed pending further order of the Court.
Looking at what little you've quoted it's not nearly as compelling as the Texas study. They broke down the rate of 21+ holders, and non-holders, males, and females, and types of crimes that would result in the revocation of a Texas CHL.
Absolutely correct, until WE stop playing the "elect the incumbent" game over and over again. However, in California, with the rules they have for voting "rights", they have the ability, like Chicago, to stack the deck illegally with no worries about being caught or prosecuted IF caught.I've come to the conclusion that the gun control lobby has transitioned to delay mode. They believe they are likely to lose many/most of these cases and when they do they take the route that creates the longest delay. When they can delay no further they will simply make a minor change in the law and reset the game.
Actually, her position as a party in Peruta is up in the air. She has filed a motion to intervene which, if granted, would make her a party. If granted and the court denies rehearing en banc or agrees with the three judge panel, she could then appeal to the Supreme Court.Is there a way for CA AG Kamala Harris to appeal the case to the Supreme Court if there either isn't an en banc hearing or the decision of the en banc court reaffirms Peruta?
I didn't think there was a way for someone who wasn't party to the original lawsuit to ask for an en back hearing... but she obviously did, so now I'm wondering if there is some other possible legal maneuver that the defendants could use to appeal to SCOTUS.
If I understand this correctly, the Peruta opinion became 'good law' on Feb 13, when it was issued. Last Friday, the direction to the lower court - to issue an opinion conforming to the Feb 13 opinion - was stayed.I thought this incorrect. I thought that if the en banc clock runs out with no action, Peruta then applies...unless and until someone files with SCOTUS (within the 90 day period).
I think they reluctantly grant State AG Kamala Harris status as an intervenor, scold her for the procedural blunder of refusing to be a party then whining about the result, then deny the en banc review just to cover their bases.
It IS the state AG, after all. Everybody knows this issue is about as ripe as it can get, and will not be resolved short of SCOTUS intervention.
Neither the AG's nor the Brady's brief add anything to the case besides a little foot stomping, and parroting of the dissent. The public safety objection is tired, weak, unsubstantiated and largely irrelevant, especially in the absence of any credible data that gun licensees create an elevated threat to the public.
The noose tightens . . . .
This is why I think that the Motion to Intervene will be granted and the Petition for en banc will be denied.
That allows the AG to petition for cert. It's a fast track to the Supreme Court.
And that's why I HOPE so. Regardless of whether you're the dog, or the pony in this show, I have to imagine you want to get an answer one way or the other. O'Scannlain appears to have a great deal of respect for the process, judging from his opinion and his answer to why he wants the 9th split. I wouldn't be surprised if he cares less about what the answer is, than he does about getting an unequivocal answer all the courts can follow- from the way he was tearing into sister courts.