A couple of points....
Tom Servo said:
... but the policy could be reversed on the election of a new sheriff.
First and foremost, the courts take a real dim view of an agency changing its policy to abate a civil rights lawsuit, only to change it back. Real Dim. Secondly, all rights were reserved to refile if the policy does in fact change to be as or more prohibitive than the settlement. Third, even though McGuiness is retiring, both candidates have publicly endorsed the new policy (obviously in order to get votes), so they would open themselves to not only the 1983 suit, but possibly to a 1982 suit (personal liability).
Fourthly, Bret Thomas was denied a CCW in Yolo county, based upon the same "good cause" statement that others were granted. This is an equal protection suit and is a no-brainer. The Yolo county suit will continue to resolution, creating a citible precedent.
Finally, about 30 CCW applications have already been granted in Sacramento on a "good cause" statement which essentially says, "I wish to carry concealed for self defense," so that any change there will invoke an equal protection suit.
jmortimer said:
It is all up to the Sheriff. Riverside County is a no-go.
That's as it stands, right now. Give this less than 2 years and CA may well be a virtual Shall Issue State.
jmortimer said:
... the democrats in suckramento will put an end to giving the Sheriff the final say if it gets too popular.
I'll wager by the time your legislature gets in gear, carry in one form or another will be the law of the land. The cards are now stacked against any State that tries to disallow its citizens the right to keep and bear arms.
Despite the rhetoric of the anti-gunners (more to the point, despite how narrowly they are reading the decisions), neither
Heller or
McDonald said that the right stops at the door to the outside of your house.