Peruta v. County of San Diego (9th Cir. 2014) just handed down a decision holding that the San Diego Sheriff's Department's policy of making concealed carry permits available on a very limited basis violates the Second Amendment. And yes, one of my law review articles gets cited in it.
UPDATE: Two of my law review articles get cited in it!
UPDATE 2: Even better: now we have a circuit split, so while the U.S. Supreme Court is not required to hear an appeal, it is likely that they will. Better now, before Presidents Obama and Clinton get a chance to put more justices there.
UPDATE 3: Not a bad time to remind people of this article by me published in the January 2013 America's First Freedom about the early history of California gun control laws.
Congrats Clayton, and good news for us all!
ReplyDeleteCA CCW Shall Issue - Now that would have a nice ring to it :)
I like footnote 1 page 2: "or (3) he faces
ReplyDeleteimmediate, grave danger provided that the weapon is only carried in “the brief
interval” between the time law enforcement officials are notified of the danger and
the time they arrive on the scene (where the fleeing victim would obtain a gun
during that interval is apparently left to Providence)."
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCongratulations! I was reading the news over on Bearing Arms and had to pop over to pat you on the back when I saw your citation. Super cool!
ReplyDeleteA potentially huge decision. I wonder how much pressure will be placed on the County not to appeal for cert? There was a lot placed on IL after Moore was decided not to appeal out of fear that a pro 2A decision would be devastating to gun control efforts.
ReplyDeleteCongratulations on the citations in this decision. Excellent work and it deserves recognition.
Another step on the long road to full incorporation of the Second Amendment. We'll know we're near the finish line when you can holster a loaded gun and walk onto an NYC subway train.
ReplyDeleteThe statist stooges throwing themselves off tall buildings ( Empire State Buildings, 8 Diving Boards, No Waiting! ) will be a bonus.
Don't we already have a circuit split, between the 7th that ... ah, I see the difference. The 7th nuked Illinois "nobody but a Chicago alderman" no issue whatsoever law.
ReplyDeleteThis creates a circuit split with the may issue cases in the 2nd (New York), 3rd (New Jersey), and 4th Circuits (Maryland), only two of which have been denied cert by the Supremes. Although New York and Maryland are from what I've heard a lot more permissive than New Jersey, ditto California. New Jersey of course does set a low bar, but not as low as Illinois prior to that case.
Or Hawaii, which per one of the plaintiffs commenting on the Volokh Conspiracy hasn't issued a single license in more than 15 years. The GAO report that came to about the same estimate as you at about the same time of number of concealed carriers listed it as having 0 outstanding permits. Pity Hawaii is in the 9th Circuit ^_^....
Congrats to you, and all the subjects in the hellhole you left who now might get a bit of relief.
Which also causes me to note we now look to be getting a new category of state: nasty restrictions, but shall issue. Colorado, Illinois, Connecticut as long as their de facto shall issue doesn't change, hopefully California, and I suppose Hawaii has other nasty laws as well.