But what's the material difference between Gore's policy and that of any other restrictive sheriff in CA, in regards to using "self defense" as a reason? Even the dissenter, Thomas, agreed in Richards that if Peruta were upheld, then Yolo's policy is also invalid. I would think if another 3 judge panel goes another way then it should logically trigger an intra circuit split and have to go to en banc.
Peruta in and of itself has already created an intra-circuit split, that was one of the reasons the AG gave in her en banc petition. Peruta has also created circuit splits with every state and Federal court of appeals.
Sheriff Prieto's policy ("Yolo's") was before the same three judges as was Peruta, they had jurisdiction over those two Sheriff's. They did not, and do not have, jurisdiction over any other policy of any other Sheriff. If you don't like the CCW policy of say, the San Francisco or Los Angeles County Sheriffs' CCW policies then you will have to file a lawsuit and argue why Peruta, which is at best persuasive, applies to your case. After a year or two of litigation you, or the opposing party will then file an appeal and perhaps a few years after that it will be assigned to a three judge panel, the probability of it being the same three judges in the Peruta/Richards cases being extremely remote. After perhaps another year or two of pondering by the three judge panel, they issue a decision which you have to pray is decided in your favor because it the court of appeals says there is no right under Heller to carry a concealed weapon then your case doesn't create a split between the Circuits, or even a split between other states, which means your cert petition gets stuck in the "dead list" and gets automatically denied. I am unaware of any CCW case filed against San Francisco (county or city or city and county).
You only need to look at my case for an exemplar. Peruta did not say that there is no Open Carry right. There was a line or two of dicta which said the Peruta plaintiffs were allowed to bring their concealed carry lawsuit because they did not challenge any state law and because they did not bring a broad based open carry challenge.
It is well established that inferior courts cannot create pleading standards not found in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Just last Monday SCOTUS released a per curium in
Johnson v. City of Shelby reminding the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals of that fact. Nonetheless, the district court judge in my case construed the unqualified line of dicta in Peruta to stand for the proposition that I do not have Article III standing to bring my lawsuit. And where the Peruta Court said that it was not ruling on the Constitutionality of any state law the district court in my case said that the Peruta Court validated California's
entire licensing scheme. Again, never mind the fact that my lawsuit did not seek to carry a firearm anywhere in the state where a license to carry by others is required and disavowed a challenge to where licenses are required (Gun Free School Zones, state and local government buildings, etc).
I won't even bother to point out the myriad of other errors the district court made in my case regarding my challenges unrelated to the Second Amendment but suffice it to say, whatever you think the Peruta decision means now or to any future concealed carry lawsuit, you are going to have to cross your fingers and hope that an appellate court agrees with you and, if not, hope that SCOTUS will grant cert in your concealed carry case which it won't.
A concealed carry case which I suspect you don't have the money to litigate and a concealed carry case which none of the so-called gun rights groups have filed.
For that matter, the only CCW cases in Los Angeles County that I am aware of are now moot because the plaintiff in one case got his CCW and the plaintiffs in the two other cases have filed new lawsuits claiming residency in counties other than Los Angeles.
