When Judge Gonzales made her preliminary ruling, some months ago, there was a ray of hope that she would be an actual impartial Judge.
With her ruling, published today, Judge Gonzales has reversed herself 180 degrees from that initial ruling. I can think of a lot of reasons why this might be so, and none of them are complimentary to her.
First, the Judge defines the "scope" of the right to permit handguns in the home and in the home, only.
Judge Gonzales opines that the ability to openly carry an unloaded handgun is protection enough for a citizen. The Judge does not touch on the issue of the CA Gunfree School Zones that make it a misdemeanor to possess within 1000 feet of a K-12 school (without a concealed permit - statutorily exempted). Therefore, unloaded open carry does not place a burden upon the right to carry and the inherent right to self defense.
While the Judge references Heller and McDonald, in that rational basis scrutiny and interest balancing were rejected by the Supreme Court, she then goes on to say that strict scrutiny is not warranted and therefore intermediate scrutiny will be used. Mincing around these words, the Judge then balances the reasonableness of the the County's methods of defining "good cause."
Judge Gonzales then irrationally conflates illegal concealed carry with lawfully concealed carry and the County's obligation to protect the public from harm caused by guns.
Sorry, words fail me to write further.
See the docket for the case. Item #64 is the order denying the plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment and granting the defendants motion for summary judgment.