• 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.

CC in Cali

Sorcice

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2011
Messages
381
Location
Madison, WI
I just got off the phone with my grandma who said CA just went from "may issue" to "shall issue" with training. Is there any weight to this?
 

Sorcice

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2011
Messages
381
Location
Madison, WI
After talking with her she said it was on the tv a few weeks ago. I wonder if it was some reporter spouting off without fact? I did find this but it's kinda old( November 17, 2010 ).

California to become a Shall Issue state?
Three weeks from today, December 6th, we should have a ruling in the case ofEd Peruta v County of San Diego et al. If Ed is successful then California will become a "Shall Issue" state which means that police authorities will no longer be able to decide who can and who cannot obtain a license to carry a loaded firearm in public. For most of us, this means a license for Concealed Carry for a couple of million lucky people it means a non-discretionary license to openly carry a loaded handgun as well.

We will have to wait for the exact wording of the judge but I am hopeful that her decision will reflectwhat she wrotein her denial of a motion to dismiss the case back on January 14th of this year.

If the judge adopts the extreme minimalist case then, at a minimum, a CCW license becomes non-discretionary, meaning if one has the money and can pass whatever training requirements the issuing authority decrees then one must be issued a license to carry a weapon concealed, or a license to openly carry a loaded weapon in counties with a population of fewer than 200,000 people.

It is my hope that Chief Federal Judge Irma Gonzalez will extend her decision to points of law she concluded in her denial of the motion to dismiss by San Diego County Sheriff Gore on January 14th of this year. In her denial, Chief Federal Judge Irma Gonzalez found the residency requirement to be unconstitutional. She concluded that it might be constitutional to deny a CCW to persons who are just passing through the state or merely within the state for a very short duration but anything beyond that is unconstitutional. The Plaintiff, Ed Peruta, is a citizen of Connecticut. Of course her most important conclusion was that we have a right to carry a loaded firearm in public for the purpose of self-defense. She came to this conclusion six months prior to the McDonald decision.

For those of us who are advocates of Loaded Open Carry we will just have to wait for her ruling. It has not escaped the attorney's for Ed Peruta that the same arguments made thus far on behalf of non-discretionary CCW also apply to the provision of the statute which limits the license for loaded open carry to persons who reside in the county as well as limiting it to the less populated counties.

Ed's case does not end with the ruling in three weeks. He will have his hands full with the jury trial next year. Once we review the Courts Opinion in three weeks, it may very well be the time for us to step up to the plate and build upon the foundation that Ed Peruta has given us by challenging the constitutionality of Loaded Open Carry being prohibited from those of us who live in the 28 counties with a population of 200,000 or more.

Posted on Wed, November 17, 2010 by Charles Nichols - LA Anti-Establishment Examiner
 

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,231
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
After talking with her she said it was on the tv a few weeks ago. I wonder if it was some reporter spouting off without fact? I did find this but it's kinda old( November 17, 2010 ).

California to become a Shall Issue state?
Three weeks from today, December 6th, we should have a ruling in the case ofEd Peruta v County of San Diego et al. If Ed is successful then California will become a "Shall Issue" state which means that police authorities will no longer be able to decide who can and who cannot obtain a license to carry a loaded firearm in public. For most of us, this means a license for Concealed Carry for a couple of million lucky people it means a non-discretionary license to openly carry a loaded handgun as well.

We will have to wait for the exact wording of the judge but I am hopeful that her decision will reflectwhat she wrotein her denial of a motion to dismiss the case back on January 14th of this year.

If the judge adopts the extreme minimalist case then, at a minimum, a CCW license becomes non-discretionary, meaning if one has the money and can pass whatever training requirements the issuing authority decrees then one must be issued a license to carry a weapon concealed, or a license to openly carry a loaded weapon in counties with a population of fewer than 200,000 people.

It is my hope that Chief Federal Judge Irma Gonzalez will extend her decision to points of law she concluded in her denial of the motion to dismiss by San Diego County Sheriff Gore on January 14th of this year. In her denial, Chief Federal Judge Irma Gonzalez found the residency requirement to be unconstitutional. She concluded that it might be constitutional to deny a CCW to persons who are just passing through the state or merely within the state for a very short duration but anything beyond that is unconstitutional. The Plaintiff, Ed Peruta, is a citizen of Connecticut. Of course her most important conclusion was that we have a right to carry a loaded firearm in public for the purpose of self-defense. She came to this conclusion six months prior to the McDonald decision.

For those of us who are advocates of Loaded Open Carry we will just have to wait for her ruling. It has not escaped the attorney's for Ed Peruta that the same arguments made thus far on behalf of non-discretionary CCW also apply to the provision of the statute which limits the license for loaded open carry to persons who reside in the county as well as limiting it to the less populated counties.

Ed's case does not end with the ruling in three weeks. He will have his hands full with the jury trial next year. Once we review the Courts Opinion in three weeks, it may very well be the time for us to step up to the plate and build upon the foundation that Ed Peruta has given us by challenging the constitutionality of Loaded Open Carry being prohibited from those of us who live in the 28 counties with a population of 200,000 or more.

Posted on Wed, November 17, 2010 by Charles Nichols - LA Anti-Establishment Examiner

The greatest error commited, was trusting that this is actually journalism of any repute. I can assure you, that it is not.

It is editorial- the most ungrounded and optimistic sort.

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Peruta_v._County_of_San_Diego

The above link is an exhaustive source of the case- while a ruling may be emminent, by no means does it assure us 'shall issue'. Yet.
 

Sorcice

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2011
Messages
381
Location
Madison, WI

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
Sorcice, you should know that the news isn't the best at getting the news right.
 
Top