The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post - Richards v. Prieto appealed to 9th Circuit

Al Norris · March 7, 2014, 09:02 AM

Dreaming, I think you might have mixed up the two cases.

Regardless, In both Richards v. Prieto and in Peruta v. San Diego, the main complaint was that neither Sheriff (Prieto and Gore, respectively) would accept "self defense" as good cause for the issuance of a concealed carry license.

At the time these cases were filed, you could lawfully carry an unloaded handgun, openly (UOC - Unloaded Open Carry). Both Richards and Peruta argued that carrying an unloaded firearm was not the same as being fully prepared for confrontation. That is, an loaded firearm was essentially useless if you were attacked and needed the firearm, now.

That was the original nature of the complaint. The only method of carrying a loaded and ready handgun was concealed carry, under CA law, and that the authorities administering the law did not accept self defense as good cause. The injury was that both were denied the effective means of self defense under CA law.

The Richards case was the first case filed. Yet the Peruta case was the first one that was decided.

The Judge in Peruta decided that UOC was all that was necessary to fulfill the requirements of the second amendment. The Judge in Richards essentially said the same thing.

During the time both cases were on appeals to the 9th circuit, the CA legislature changed the law and banned any form of open carry within the limits of a city/town. That changed an essential nature of the lawsuits.

Reading Judge O'Scannlain's opinion, although it would not have changed the nature of his decision. It did make his decision easier. Under the operating parameters of the second amendment, as laid out by the Supreme Court in Heller, the State must allow at least one form of armed carry. The State of CA had chosen concealed carry as that means. That the State did, in the form of licensed concealed carry. Where the injury was in the Sheriffs interpretation of the State "Good Cause" clause, the Sheriffs must include "self defense" as good cause.

No State law was struck down. Only a policy of individual interpretation of the law was ruled unconstitutional.

Does that help with your confusion?

March 7, 2014, 09:02 AM	#56
Al Norris Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 29, 2000 Location: Rupert, Idaho Posts: 9,660	Dreaming, I think you might have mixed up the two cases. Regardless, In both Richards v. Prieto and in Peruta v. San Diego, the main complaint was that neither Sheriff (Prieto and Gore, respectively) would accept "self defense" as good cause for the issuance of a concealed carry license. At the time these cases were filed, you could lawfully carry an unloaded handgun, openly (UOC - Unloaded Open Carry). Both Richards and Peruta argued that carrying an unloaded firearm was not the same as being fully prepared for confrontation. That is, an loaded firearm was essentially useless if you were attacked and needed the firearm, now. That was the original nature of the complaint. The only method of carrying a loaded and ready handgun was concealed carry, under CA law, and that the authorities administering the law did not accept self defense as good cause. The injury was that both were denied the effective means of self defense under CA law. The Richards case was the first case filed. Yet the Peruta case was the first one that was decided. The Judge in Peruta decided that UOC was all that was necessary to fulfill the requirements of the second amendment. The Judge in Richards essentially said the same thing. During the time both cases were on appeals to the 9th circuit, the CA legislature changed the law and banned any form of open carry within the limits of a city/town. That changed an essential nature of the lawsuits. Reading Judge O'Scannlain's opinion, although it would not have changed the nature of his decision. It did make his decision easier. Under the operating parameters of the second amendment, as laid out by the Supreme Court in Heller, the State must allow at least one form of armed carry. The State of CA had chosen concealed carry as that means. That the State did, in the form of licensed concealed carry. Where the injury was in the Sheriffs interpretation of the State "Good Cause" clause, the Sheriffs must include "self defense" as good cause. No State law was struck down. Only a policy of individual interpretation of the law was ruled unconstitutional. Does that help with your confusion?