A LANDMARK new ruling on Nov. 12 by a federal appeals panel could change California’s laws for the right to bear arms.
The Second Amendment case decision by the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals would bar advocacy groups and even law enforcement officials from gaining “intervener status” to continue challenging the gun ruling, which could restrict the issuance of permits to carry concealed handguns in public.
Newly re-elected state Attorney General Kamala Harris along with a gun control group were both denied an attempt to intervene in a case involving a journalist who sued the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department over its tight policy of carrying concealed weapons. Gun owner Edward Peruta sued the police department for requiring a specific, justified reason for being allowed to carry an obscured weapon. Similar restrictions in some counties statewide have already been in place (Orange County, for instance, issues gun permits on request), but many are waiting for a firm resolution in the case.
San Diego County Sheriff Bill Gore said that he will not fight the ruling, meaning there is no one withstanding left to challenge the court’s decision made in February.
“Since becoming Sheriff, I have always maintained that it is the legislature’s responsibility to make the laws, and the judiciary’s responsibility to interpret them and their constitutionality,” Gore wrote to the San Diego board of supervisors.
In its bombshell ruling earlier in February, the 9th Circuit found the restricting gun policies to be unconstitutional, and law-abiding citizens have the right to bear arms under the Constitution’s Second Amendment and could not be required to justify their reasons for having a concealed weapon. The main constraints are for carrying firearms in places such as schools and government buildings, and for prohibited use for felons and the mentally ill.
The 2-1 ruling on Nov. 12 proved to be a victory for gun rights advocates, but is not likely to be the final word on the issue. California still has the right and is expected to appeal the order. A similar pending case was brought in Yolo County over their police department’s gun restrictions, and Sheriff Edward Prieto has not indicated if he will drop further appeals, which could be heard by all 9th Circuit Judges or by the US Supreme Court.
In the current Peruta case, conservative Judges Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain and Consuelo M. Callahan have said that Attorney General Harris and her colleagues waited “too long” to get involved. The majority also said that the February decision did not question the constitutionality of a state law, but only the way San Diego County chose to regulate guns under California law.
Since being denied to intervene in the case, Harris has not said what she would do.
One judge on the appeals panel disagreed with the pro-gun ruling, saying the state should be able to defend its policies and to “present an argument on an important constitutional question affecting millions of citizens.”
Gun advocates, meanwhile, believe the Peruta case is the best way to persuade the Supreme Court to strike down restrictive open carry regulations throughout the country, and an official appeal would move the case closer to the Supreme Court.
“The attorney general can now decide whether the Peruta case ends here,” said Chuck Michel, a lawyer who represented gun owners in the case.
Brandon Combs, executive director of the pro-Second Amendment Calguns Foundation, which represented the plaintiff in the Yolo County case, said he believes more counties will likely drop their strict rules on concealed-carry permits.
“Some sheriffs are probably going to see this news as evidence their policies are wrong,” Combs said. “But sheriffs and police chiefs in anti-gun jurisdictions may need more help seeing the light. We’ll be happy to help them, even if it means going to the Supreme Court.”
(With reports from FOX News, Los Angeles Times)
(www.asianjournal.com)
(OCIE November 14-20, 2014 Sec. A pg.1)
