• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

9th circuit rules may issue unconstitutional in Peruta

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
If you want to protest.....protest.

Look seriously at the advice and other avenues, but don't let the naysayers stop you from exercising a right and possibly bring more attention (even media) attention to a department that doesn't give a rats ass about you or your rights, even though they work for you.
 

RockerFor2A

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
145
Location
Lemon Grove, CA
If you want to protest.....protest.

Look seriously at the advice and other avenues, but don't let the naysayers stop you from exercising a right and possibly bring more attention (even media) attention to a department that doesn't give a rats ass about you or your rights, even though they work for you.

We have to ultimately decide what is right for ourselves. I do appreciate the advice though. Thanks. I think if you were on a public sidewalk and merely holding signs and had some witnesses recording it and weren't being "disorderly" you might get away with it. I might drive by and scout if there's a suitable location where it could be done in a public setting with plenty of impartial witnesses. I have some ideas.
 
Last edited:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
It did not. I was pointing out the logic that he's quoting a corrupted judge who basically said the right isn't really a right.

I thought you weren't supposed to say negative things about judges? :p

You missed the whole point again and again are going to insist that was the point......:rolleyes:

Of course my point was succinct and too the point, you just don't like it.
 
Last edited:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
We have to ultimately decide what is right for ourselves. I do appreciate the advice though. Thanks. I think if you were on a public sidewalk and merely holding signs and had some witnesses recording it and weren't being "disorderly" you might get away with it. I might drive by and scout if there's a suitable location where it could be done in a public setting with plenty of impartial witnesses. I have some ideas.

I encourage you to do it. Move Out and Draw Fire! You have my moral support.
 

RockerFor2A

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
145
Location
Lemon Grove, CA
Thanks. Well, just as a citizen I really think this Sheriff Bill Gore is an awful sheriff. I voted for Jay LaSuer in the last election. Bill Gore is supposed to work for us, and here is ONE MAN who can enforce his own twisted opinion (which flagrantly violates the 2nd Amendment) on all of us in San Diego County. It's simply HIS opinion that is enforcing this tyranny.

We could solve this problem one of two ways: wait for the courts to force Bill Gore to do the right thing, or really make an effort to vote this guy out of office next election. How many people in San Diego even know his connection with Ruby Ridge? Whenever I tell people about it, they'd never heard that before.
 
Last edited:

RockerFor2A

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
145
Location
Lemon Grove, CA
Does anybody know how long Bill Gore has to either request an "en banc" decision or appeal? Can he simply drag his feet and refuse to comply with the court's ruling indefinitely?
 
Last edited:

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
Does anybody know how long Bill Gore has to either request an "en banc" decision or appeal? Can he simply drag his feet and refuse to comply with the court's ruling indefinitely?

Looks like 14 days after judgment. So the 27th of February.


FRCP 35 said:
(c) Time for Petition for Hearing or Rehearing En Banc. A petition that an appeal be heard initially en banc must be filed by the date when the appellee's brief is due. A petition for a rehearing en banc must be filed within the time prescribed by Rule 40 for filing a petition for rehearing.

FRCP 40 said:
(1) Time. Unless the time is shortened or extended by order or local rule, a petition for panel rehearing may be filed within 14 days after entry of judgment. But in a civil case, unless an order shortens or extends the time, the petition may be filed by any party within 45 days after entry of judgment if one of the parties is:

(A) the United States;

(B) a United States agency;

(C) a United States officer or employee sued in an official capacity; or

(D) a current or former United States officer or employee sued in an individual capacity for an act or omission occurring in connection with duties performed on the United States' behalf — including all instances in which the United States represents that person when the court of appeals' judgment is entered or files that petition for that person.
 

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
Does anybody know how long Bill Gore has to either request an "en banc" decision or appeal?

Two weeks to file an en banc petition for rehearing or, more likely, request an extension to file the petition. Case in point is US v. Chovan which was decided on November 18th. The Court of Appeals has extended the deadline for filing an en banc petition until tomorrow, February 18th. The Court can pretty much extend deadlines as long as it wants.

Can he simply drag his feet and refuse to comply with the court's ruling indefinitely?

There is nothing for Sheriff Gore to "comply" with at this point in time. The case was remanded back to the district court judge for further proceedings. Unlike the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Moore v. Madigan the 9th CCA did not issue an injunction against Sheriff Gore's current concealed carry policy, further proceedings, which may or may not involve an injunction, are up to the district court.

And, as I've pointed out, since the only thing Peruta is challenging is the current CCW policy of the Sheriff, all Gore has to do is to throw away his old policy and write a new, just as restrictive policy, and the NRA will have to file an amended complaint to challenge Sheriff Gore's new policy and the process begins anew.

If Sheriff Gore decides to go that route then Peruta is years away from being able to file another appeal.

Meanwhile, a decision in my Open Carry case (Nichols v. Brown) will have been long since been decided and the Peruta case, along with every other California concealed carry case will become moot.

"[A] right to carry arms openly: "This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations."" District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court (2008) at 2809.

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues." District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court (2008) at 2816.

Charles Nichols - President of California Right To Carry
 

onus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
699
Location
idaho
One reason I keep getting banned from Cal Guns is because I keep telling them that CCW's in California are still about 5 years away (if ever).

After the Peruta ruling I read a lot of people on Cal Guns jumping up and down celebrating and kissing the feet of the Cal Guns lawyers and "experts".

However, its nice to see them now coming back to reality and realizing....CCW's are still years away in California. (if ever)
 

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
There is nothing for Sheriff Gore to "comply" with at this point in time. The case was remanded back to the district court judge for further proceedings. Unlike the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Moore v. Madigan the 9th CCA did not issue an injunction against Sheriff Gore's current concealed carry policy, further proceedings, which may or may not involve an injunction, are up to the district court.

And, as I've pointed out, since the only thing Peruta is challenging is the current CCW policy of the Sheriff, all Gore has to do is to throw away his old policy and write a new, just as restrictive policy, and the NRA will have to file an amended complaint to challenge Sheriff Gore's new policy and the process begins anew.

If Sheriff Gore decides to go that route then Peruta is years away from being able to file another appeal.


So much motivated reasoning here.

You're not telling the truth about the situation involving the 7th Circuit. In Moore v. Madigan, the 7th Circuit wrote:

The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment therefore compels us to reverse the decisions in the two cases before us and remand them to their respective district courts for the entry of declarations of unconstitutionality and permanent injunctions. Nevertheless we order our mandate stayed for 180 days to allow the Illinois legislature to craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment as interpreted in this opinion, on the carrying of guns in public.
REVERSED AND REMANDED, WITH DIRECTIONS;
BUT MANDATE STAYED FOR 180 DAYS.

When the mandate was issued back to the District Court, the district court in Shepard ruled the case moot. The District Court truncated the above language as to the alternatives of which does the state want to do: pass a law or have an injunction. The state chose "pass a law".

When it went back to the 7th Circuit, the Moore panel took Shepard and made this ruling:

Their only basis for complaining about the district court's refusal to enjoin the old law immediately — and thus allow them (if they have a FOID card) to start carrying guns in public without complying with the new law — is that we ordered it and therefore the district court has violated our order. That is incorrect. We made no order regarding relief except to specify a deadline for the state to enact a new law. It met the deadline. Thus the district court did not violate our mandate and so there is no basis for the relief that the plaintiffs sought. The denial of that relief is therefore
AFFIRMED.

Compare and Contrast this with the language of Peruta.

The district court erred in denying the applicant's motion for summary judgment on the Second Amendment claim because San Diego County's "good cause" permitting requirement impermissibly infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense.[22]

REVERSED and REMANDED

Specifically, the Peruta district court was called out for denying the MSJ. The reverse/remand order is for her (Judge Gonzalez) to grant the partial MSJ filed by Peruta's counsel.

The 2A claims and prayer for relief from the amended complaint were:

148. An order permanently enjoining Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concern or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction, from enforcing the "good cause" or other requirements of California Penal Code section 12050 as applied against applicants who seek a CCW for self-defense and who are otherwise qualified to obtain a CCW

149. Declaratory relief that Defendants interpretation of the "good cause" provisions of California Penal Code section 12050 is unconstitutional either on it's face and/or as applied to applicants whoa re otherwise legally qualified to possess firearms and who assert self-defense as their "good cause" for seeking a license to carry a concealed weapon.

Once the MSJ is granted, Sheriff Gore and his associates cannot simply rewrite the "good cause" to something less onerous but more than self defense, because the MSJ grant to the plaintiffs would put the above words into injunctive relief against Sheriff Gore & the county.

If Judge Gonazalez refuses to grant the plaintiff's MSJ, per Circuit Rule 27-3 plaintiff counsel can file an emergency motion overturning said decision, and they'd likely get relief within days. See the filing in Isaacson v. Horne, Circuit Rule 27-3 plaintiff motion for relief, which was granted two days later by the motions panel of the 9th Circuit. Refusal to recognize "self defense" as good cause under Peruta's constitutional reasoning is per se irreparable harm as it would be a constitutional violation.

The only reason why Gore does not have to "comply with anything" is because the mandate in Peruta has not been issued, directing Judge Gonzalez to grant plaintiff's MSJ.
 

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
One reason I keep getting banned from Cal Guns is because I keep telling them that CCW's in California are still about 5 years away (if ever).

After the Peruta ruling I read a lot of people on Cal Guns jumping up and down celebrating and kissing the feet of the Cal Guns lawyers and "experts".

However, its nice to see them now coming back to reality and realizing....CCW's are still years away in California. (if ever)


One of the CalGuns senior members posted right after you did. Let's ignore him shall we? Who knows, this might one day actually become a forum for Open Carry advocates?

Concealed carry is highly unlikely to be forthcoming in California but if it squeaks by here and there, the justification given in Peruta won't last long. I anticipated that the Peruta Court might make a wishy-washy decision given the district court judge's unique interpretation of Nunn v. State and covered all of the bases.

My Open Carry case is framed perfectly. For me to lose, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals would have to conclude that I do not have a right to openly carry a loaded or unloaded firearm even in my own home, for any reason. The Court would also have to overturn a host of binding precedents unrelated to the Second Amendment.

Keep in mind that the only part of the state that would be affected by overturning the three laws I am challenging are incorporated cities and unincorporated county territory where the discharge of a firearm is prohibited but where hunters, either while hunting or travelling to or from a hunting trip, are exempt from the Open Carry bans. There are also a hundred special interest groups who got exemptions from the unloaded open carry bans, such as lawyers and bill collectors.

My favorite argument made by the Attorney General thus far is that the Framer's intent in enacting the Second Amendment was to curry favor with Southern states and slave patrols. Therefore overturning California's 1967 Black Panther Open Carry ban would be overturning the Second Amendment.

Guess which of the Attorney General's arguments will appear as the opening paragraph to my opening brief on appeal?

Sometimes I almost think Attorney General Harris is trying to throw the case. :D

Charles Nichols - President of California Right To Carry


"[A] right to carry arms openly: "This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations."" District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court (2008) at 2809.

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues." District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court (2008) at 2816.
 

oc4ever

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
280
Location
, ,
One reason I keep getting banned from Cal Guns is because I keep telling them that CCW's in California are still about 5 years away (if ever).

After the Peruta ruling I read a lot of people on Cal Guns jumping up and down celebrating and kissing the feet of the Cal Guns lawyers and "experts".

However, its nice to see them now coming back to reality and realizing....CCW's are still years away in California. (if ever)

You could not be more wrong, the dominos are starting to drop already……..

As I predicted in a earlier post, many more Californians will get CCW's soon. I just heard on the news tonight , the Orange County Sheriff's Department is dropping "good cause" from their CCW requirements because of this ruling, effective immediately. OC had a "good cause " clause almost identical to San Diego's . At least they won't get sued liked Los Angeles, who I doubt will ever comply until ordered by a court at great expense. It is only a matter of time until that also happens. OC Sheriff Hutchins, who came from Los Angeles law enforcement circles, has always been on the wrong side of the OC Board of Supervisors on this issue, canceling many of the previous issued permits. Many of those were issued from the corrupt previous Sheriff who handed them out to big campaign donors and buddies, so hard to tell, what was legitimate or not . If her new liberalized policy last, who knows, she is obviously being forced to do it against her will.

The below is a excerpt from the OC Register paper……….


O.C. sheriff eases rules for carrying a concealed weapon
Local applicants seeking a permit to carry a concealed weapon now only have to say that they need one for self-defense or personal safety.






BY DAVID MONTERO / STAFF WRITER
Published: Feb. 19, 2014 Updated: Feb. 20, 2014 1:59 p.m.
concealed-prove-applicant
FILE PHOTO: JEBB HARRIS, STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER
CONCEALED WEAPON PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
Cost for standard 2-year permit: $195.22

Must be full-time Orange County resident

Must past background checks

At interview, must have the following:

Birth certificate, valid California Driver's License, two recent passport photos, good cause statement, documents in support of request, military discharge papers (if applicable) and copies of two most recent utility bills to prove full-time residency

Completed Department of Justice application

Source: Orange County Sheriff's Department

The Orange County sheriff loosened requirements Wednesday for obtaining a concealed-weapons permit in light of a recent federal appellate court decision that deemed many urban counties in California to be overly restrictive in saying who can and can’t carry a concealed weapon.
Local applicants seeking a permit to carry a concealed weapon now only have to say that they need one for self-defense or personal safety. Previously, applicants were required to prove “good cause,” a standard that typically limited concealed weapons in Orange County to people who carry large sums of cash or valuables, or who could prove an existing mortal threat.
“Bottom line is the sheriff is going to abide by the law,” said Lt. Jeff Hallock, a spokesman for O.C. Sheriff Sandra Hutchens.
“Before the court’s decision, good cause was something that was evaluated by the sheriff. What she considers good cause may not be same as Los Angeles, Riverside or San Diego as good cause. But in looking at the decision, some of the subjectiveness is taken out of it.”
The Feb. 13 ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was widely seen as the court’s attempt to unify the vast differences in how the state’s urban and rural counties issue concealed weapons permits. Urban counties tended to be much tighter in issuing permits while rural counties were more expansive in interpreting an applicant’s “good cause” assertion.
San Diego County, which was the defendant in the case, hasn’t filed an appeal of the 9th Circuit 2-1 decision, though the deadline is Feb. 27.
It’s unclear if the new rules in Orange County will lead to many more new concealed weapons.
Hallock said since the Feb. 13 ruling his agency has received more inquiries from Orange County residents presumably interested in getting a concealed weapon permit, but it’s too early to know if those inquiries have translated into more applications. He wouldn’t guess about how many applications might come to his agency after announcing the new rules.
It’s also unknown how the new rules would automatically lead more people receiving permits. Getting a two-year standard concealed weapon permit in California still requires passing a background check and a posting fee of $195.22, and completing 16 hours of class time on carrying and shooting weapons.
Lawrence Rosenthal, Chapman University law professor, said any sheriff’s department that is changing its procedures now is doing so voluntarily because the court decision isn’t final until 14 days after it was issued. He also said that San Diego can appeal the decision to the full 11-panel hearing of the 9th Circuit Court or could seek a ruling at the U.S. Supreme Court. He said an appeal could drag the case out for another year.
He also described the three-member panel that issued the Feb. 13 ruling as “unusually conservative.” The two judges who voted to ease the restrictions were appointed by President George W. Bush and President Ronald Reagan. The dissenter was a President Bill Clinton appointee.
Not all counties have opted to change their existing concealed weapons permits “good cause” guidelines.
On the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s website, applicants are forewarned that good cause “shall exist only if there is convincing evidence of a clear and present danger to life or of great bodily harm to the applicant, his spouse or dependent child which cannot be adequately dealt with by existing law enforcement resources.”
The San Diego County Sheriff also hasn’t changed its policy – though officials there said the issue is “under review.”
Hallock said that despite the Orange County Sheriff’s change in policy, they are cautioning applicants to be prepared to reapply if San Diego successfully appeals the case.
1
 
Last edited:

onus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
699
Location
idaho
You could not be more wrong, the dominos are starting to drop already……..

As I predicted in a earlier post, many more Californians will get CCW's soon. I just heard on the news tonight , the Orange County Sheriff's Department is dropping "good cause" from their CCW requirements because of this ruling, effective immediately. OC had a "good cause " clause almost identical to San Diego's . At least they won't get sued liked Los Angeles, who I doubt will ever comply until ordered by a court at great expense. It is only a matter of time until that also happens. OC Sheriff Hutchins, who came from Los Angeles law enforcement circles, has always been on the wrong side of the OC Board of Supervisors on this issue, canceling many of the previous issued permits. Many of those were issued from the corrupt previous Sheriff who handed them out to big campaign donors and buddies, so hard to tell, what was legitimate or not . If her new liberalized policy last, who knows, she is obviously being forced to do it against her will.

The below is a excerpt from the OC Register paper……….


O.C. sheriff eases rules for carrying a concealed weapon
Local applicants seeking a permit to carry a concealed weapon now only have to say that they need one for self-defense or personal safety.






BY DAVID MONTERO / STAFF WRITER
Published: Feb. 19, 2014 Updated: Feb. 20, 2014 1:59 p.m.
concealed-prove-applicant
FILE PHOTO: JEBB HARRIS, STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER
CONCEALED WEAPON PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
Cost for standard 2-year permit: $195.22

Must be full-time Orange County resident

Must past background checks

At interview, must have the following:

Birth certificate, valid California Driver's License, two recent passport photos, good cause statement, documents in support of request, military discharge papers (if applicable) and copies of two most recent utility bills to prove full-time residency

Completed Department of Justice application

Source: Orange County Sheriff's Department

The Orange County sheriff loosened requirements Wednesday for obtaining a concealed-weapons permit in light of a recent federal appellate court decision that deemed many urban counties in California to be overly restrictive in saying who can and can’t carry a concealed weapon.
Local applicants seeking a permit to carry a concealed weapon now only have to say that they need one for self-defense or personal safety. Previously, applicants were required to prove “good cause,” a standard that typically limited concealed weapons in Orange County to people who carry large sums of cash or valuables, or who could prove an existing mortal threat.
“Bottom line is the sheriff is going to abide by the law,” said Lt. Jeff Hallock, a spokesman for O.C. Sheriff Sandra Hutchens.
“Before the court’s decision, good cause was something that was evaluated by the sheriff. What she considers good cause may not be same as Los Angeles, Riverside or San Diego as good cause. But in looking at the decision, some of the subjectiveness is taken out of it.”
The Feb. 13 ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was widely seen as the court’s attempt to unify the vast differences in how the state’s urban and rural counties issue concealed weapons permits. Urban counties tended to be much tighter in issuing permits while rural counties were more expansive in interpreting an applicant’s “good cause” assertion.
San Diego County, which was the defendant in the case, hasn’t filed an appeal of the 9th Circuit 2-1 decision, though the deadline is Feb. 27.
It’s unclear if the new rules in Orange County will lead to many more new concealed weapons.
Hallock said since the Feb. 13 ruling his agency has received more inquiries from Orange County residents presumably interested in getting a concealed weapon permit, but it’s too early to know if those inquiries have translated into more applications. He wouldn’t guess about how many applications might come to his agency after announcing the new rules.
It’s also unknown how the new rules would automatically lead more people receiving permits. Getting a two-year standard concealed weapon permit in California still requires passing a background check and a posting fee of $195.22, and completing 16 hours of class time on carrying and shooting weapons.
Lawrence Rosenthal, Chapman University law professor, said any sheriff’s department that is changing its procedures now is doing so voluntarily because the court decision isn’t final until 14 days after it was issued. He also said that San Diego can appeal the decision to the full 11-panel hearing of the 9th Circuit Court or could seek a ruling at the U.S. Supreme Court. He said an appeal could drag the case out for another year.
He also described the three-member panel that issued the Feb. 13 ruling as “unusually conservative.” The two judges who voted to ease the restrictions were appointed by President George W. Bush and President Ronald Reagan. The dissenter was a President Bill Clinton appointee.
Not all counties have opted to change their existing concealed weapons permits “good cause” guidelines.
On the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s website, applicants are forewarned that good cause “shall exist only if there is convincing evidence of a clear and present danger to life or of great bodily harm to the applicant, his spouse or dependent child which cannot be adequately dealt with by existing law enforcement resources.”
The San Diego County Sheriff also hasn’t changed its policy – though officials there said the issue is “under review.”
Hallock said that despite the Orange County Sheriff’s change in policy, they are cautioning applicants to be prepared to reapply if San Diego successfully appeals the case.
1

Well this is good news and a step in the right direction.

However, it remains to be seen if anyone is actually granted their permits since OC has said that any appeal will cause a "reevaluation" of all applications and permits.

Plus, this is just one county.

Lets see how this pans out.
 

oc4ever

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
280
Location
, ,
Well this is good news and a step in the right direction.

However, it remains to be seen if anyone is actually granted their permits since OC has said that any appeal will cause a "reevaluation" of all applications and permits.

Plus, this is just one county.

Lets see how this pans out.

Orange County is a county of 3 million people, bigger than some states, and roughly one percent of the entire USA population. I will let you know how it works out , CCW permit application appointment soon to come.
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
Well this is good news and a step in the right direction.

However, it remains to be seen if anyone is actually granted their permits since OC has said that any appeal will cause a "reevaluation" of all applications and permits...

San Diego sheriff says he will not appeal, but...
However, the sheriff is slow-walking the change as much as possible. He said that any new application process will not start until the full time has elapsed for the district court to make the ruling final.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/21/san-diego-wont-appeal-9th-circuit-on-concealed-car/
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Last edited by a moderator:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
I don't see an issue with the guy awaiting a final judgement/decision. Not that I would need one and think that they have been violating their rights for years and years and he's just being a ****hole.

Like him or not, he prolly sees that as being prudent.

The ball is showing signs of being moved forward. That is better than yesterday.
 
Top