The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

esqappellate · February 21, 2014, 01:10 PM

correct, the court didn't strike down the California statute, which authorizes the issuance of a permit for "good cause." What they did strike down was SD's official policy that good cause did NOT include self defense. Other Cal. counties consider good cause to include self defense. So it was SD's official construction of good cause that was at issue. Hence my reference to "municipal" in the earlier post. The point is that the court struck down a municipal ordinance. While certainly less weighty than a state statute, ala Moore, it will suffice for purposes of cert.

BTW, the best of all worlds for Calif. residents is for SD to forgo en banc and forgo cert. Peruta then becomes binding precedent as to the 9th Circuit, including all of California. The California counties will have to come into line, or face suits forcing them to come into line. Not being stupid, they will comply.

February 21, 2014, 01:10 PM	#149
esqappellate Member Join Date: October 16, 2012 Posts: 69	correct, the court didn't strike down the California statute, which authorizes the issuance of a permit for "good cause." What they did strike down was SD's official policy that good cause did NOT include self defense. Other Cal. counties consider good cause to include self defense. So it was SD's official construction of good cause that was at issue. Hence my reference to "municipal" in the earlier post. The point is that the court struck down a municipal ordinance. While certainly less weighty than a state statute, ala Moore, it will suffice for purposes of cert. BTW, the best of all worlds for Calif. residents is for SD to forgo en banc and forgo cert. Peruta then becomes binding precedent as to the 9th Circuit, including all of California. The California counties will have to come into line, or face suits forcing them to come into line. Not being stupid, they will comply. Last edited by esqappellate; February 21, 2014 at 01:22 PM.