CGF_SWORDS_2012_horiz

In another victory for Golden State gun rights, a Ninth Circuit panel has issued one more pro-gun rights decision – this time a 3-0 smackdown – in favor of reduced restrictions on concealed carry permits. Building on the Ninth’s earlier Peruta ruling, Calguns, the Second Amendment Foundation and pro-gun rights attorney extraordinaire, Alan Gura, have succeeded in lowering the barriers to obtaining concealed carry permits, this time in Yolo County. Press release after the jump . . .

BELLEVUE, WA, and ROSEVILLE, CA – The Second Amendment Foundation and The Calguns Foundation earned a significant victory today when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case of Richards v. Prieto, challenging the handgun carry license issuing policy of Yolo County, California, Sheriff Ed Prieto.

“Today’s ruling reinforces the Second Amendment’s application to state and local governments, and will help clear the way for more California citizens to exercise their right to bear arms,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “California officials have been put on notice that they can no longer treat the Second Amendment as a heavily-regulated government privilege.”

The case was originally filed in 2009 as Sykes v. McGinness, and challenged not only Yolo County’s policies, but Sacramento County’s then-restrictive practices as well. SAF, Calguns and two private citizens, Adam Richards and Brett Stewart, continued pursuing the case against Yolo County after Sacramento County agreed to relax its policy. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Alan Gura and Don Kilmer.

“We are confident that the win today will stand the test of time,” said Calguns Foundation Chairman Gene Hoffman.

The Richards case was argued at the same time, and to the same panel, that earlier decided Peruta v. County of San Diego, a similar case challenging overly-restrictive carry license policies. Yolo County and Sheriff Prieto argued that their policies were distinguishable from those struck down in Peruta, but apparently, the three-judge panel unanimously disagreed.

“The Ninth Circuit’s decision moves our Carry License Compliance Initiative forward,” explained CGF Executive Director Brandon Combs. “We’re already preparing the next phase of litigation to ensure that all law-abiding Californians can exercise their right to bear arms.”

Gottlieb noted that the battle over right-to-carry laws is far from over, but today’s Ninth Circuit decision reaffirms that court’s earlier ruling in the Peruta case and “moves the ball another step forward.”

“We will pursue Second Amendment affirmation wherever and whenever such cases are possible as SAF fights to win back gun rights one lawsuit at a time,” Gottlieb stated.

California carry license applicants can download state-standard application forms, legal information, and report unconstitutional policies or process issues at https://www.calgunsfoundation.org/carry.

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms.  Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

The Calguns Foundation (www.calgunsfoundation.org) is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization that serves its members, supporters, and the public through educational, cultural, and judicial efforts to defend and advance Second Amendment and related civil rights.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

76 COMMENTS

      • Yay. And all you yellow dog french surrender monkies that keep telling us to run away, Kiss My Grits!

        • In related news, France surrendered to Russia today.

          Hold on, we’re getting more news — France has also surrendered to Ukraine.

        • But wait – this is just breaking: Libya surrendered to an alliance of France and some guy named “Chad”….

    • Oh yea?
      http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100311/NEWS/3110340

      From the article: “On Wednesday, Massachusetts Justice Ralph Gants said the Heller decision did not have any bearing on state law.

      “We conclude that, based on current federal law, the Second Amendment does not apply to the states, either through the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of substantive due process or otherwise,” he said.

      “The defendant’s challenge likewise fails under our Massachusetts Constitution, which recognizes no individual right to keep and bear arms.”

      Ma doesn’t even recognize the 2nd amendment.

        • Point? When a judge says we don’t recognize the second amendment is there an expiration date to that?

        • The Supreme Court ruling that the 2nd Amendment does apply to the States came on June 28, 2010, after this article was written.

          MA didn’t recognize it before that date, but has no choice since then.

      • WE all have issues until all of US are free! We just have more and if we could get SCOTUS to settle this once and for ALL it wouldn’t be to bad here.

    • you’d this so – but the University of Ca at Davis is in Yolo County and Davis, CA is a hot bed for bed wetting and draconian restrictions to make people safe from themselves.

      • I’m fairly certain he was making a “You only live once!” joke rather than a serious comment.

      • I would have loved to have had this decision passed down when I was at Davis just a few years ago. I was “friends” with the president of the Davis Democrats (we had several classes together) and he would always give the most ridiculous arguments whenever we got into a debate about firearms.

  3. The best part is no dissent. I’m hoping that tightens up the case against allowing AG Harris to intervene in Peruta or a request for en banc.

    • I think the the panel was unanimous in declaring that issues of Richards were no different than Peruta. I suspect it was still a 2-1 decision like Peruta. It would be interesting if the dissenting judge in Peruta switched…

      • The dissenting justice, Thomas, agreed that the decision in Richards was controlled by Peruta–“unless reversed by an en banc determination or the Supreme Court. But for Peruta, he says in his concurrence, he would have concluded that limitations on carrying concealed firearms are constitutional, and that the rules in Yolo County passed intermediate scrutiny. In short, he did not change his mind, merely conceded that stare decisis applied.

        • What most are reading into this is that there will be no en banc rehearing of Peruta. The theory goes, if the 3-judge panel thought Peruta would go en banc, they would’ve held this decision, since it basically is just another restatement of Peruta. If Peruta were to be reversed, this one would too.

        • It may be too early to tell. It will take several weeks just to resolve the issues of standing.

  5. I’m bout ta get flamed, so I’ll put on my asbestos pants…. To be frank, without the work of open carry activists in CA, this may never have happened. I know they get massively blamed for all kinds of “look what you did” business on the interwebs, but read the 9th circuit ruling on Peruta. Essentially it was the knee jerk ban on all open carry that established a de facto ban on all carry in a “may issue” state. 9th circuit ruled that while the .gov can determine which method of carry (open or concealed) they cannot ban both. The law passed banning all open carry created the violation of rights that ended with the overturning of the “may issue” situation. Isn’t that win?

    • Like it or not, open carry forces people to choose sides and show their true colors.

      I have always laughed at the people who said, “Don’t carry openly or else the government will pass laws that criminalize being armed.” Newsflash: governments have steadily passed laws criminalizing all manner of being armed long before anyone started openly carrying firearms.

      Hiding, being nice and quiet, and hoping for the best is not an effective strategy to stop an enemy that does not respect basic human rights.

      • I couldnt agree more, and I think more of us are starting to realize that silence is agreement to the antis. RangerUp has this lovely little gem from one of their The Damn Few episodes about hope, specifically one of the best ones, the gun control episode. Rhino is talking about the 2A:

        “It exists because without weapons, all you can do is HOPE that armed men will be fair and honest?
        Well Guess fucking what? HOPE is not a plan, and when people use it as such, they tend to end up taking it up their fourth point of contact.”

    • @SomeGuy, there’s nothing to flame about. These cases would not have been won without the ground work done by the open carry activists. Period.

  6. This victory can only be sum up in the words of Sam Cooke.

    It’s been a long, a long time coming
    But I know a change gonna come, oh yes it will.

    • Or,for those born AFTER the ice age…. ( no disrespect intended of coarse. )
      Sick puppies lyrics:

      It’s been a long time coming
      And the table’s turned around
      ‘Cause one of us is going
      One of us is going down
      I’m not running,
      It’s a little different now
      ‘Cause one of us is going
      One of us is going down.

    • They’ll be turning stomachs if an en banc panel reverses. In the immortal words of Winston Wolf . . . well, you know the words.

      • Yeah, I’m not a lawyer, nor do I play one on the internet.

        So, I guess, we’ll see where it goes.

  9. So the plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in 2009 and we just got a decision in 2014?

    How does it take 5 years to get a decision on deprivation of basic civil rights?

    • I don’t remember the details, but the vague summary is that there was another 2A case, Nordyke, which kept cycling back and forth between trial and appeal courts. Richards would have depended on Nordyke, so it was postponed. At one point, Nordyke actually ruled (before Heller) that the 2A was an individual right but en banc changed that. Nordyke was eventually finished on silly grounds, which started Richards up again.

      • The key to Nordyke was that the 9th Circuit ruled that 2A was incorporated even before SCOTUS came to that conclusion in McDonald.

        Nordyke was bounced up and down over the issue of whether a gun show could be held on public property, and was finally dispensed with because the county decided to permit the show, subject to some rules.

        • I believe the lesson of both Richards and Peruta is careful lawyering built on a strategic effort for a step by step iron-clad logical building on precedence. Nordyk was settled, partly because the lawyers for the anti-gunners knew they were beat, but also because they didnt want to be beat, and set precedence.

          Thats why Richards and Peruta had to wait a bit longer.
          MUCHO Kudos for NRA and SAF for working TOGETHER and CGF for carefully managing the effort, in state, including the petitioners to be patient and work with highly qualified counsel, quietly coordinating behind the scenes as needed, without grandstanding.

          A very big lesson in itself for 2A rights supporters to avoid OCD insistence on being right on details, and getting into the circular firing squad…

          this is how you win over the prog-tards who abuse the Executive function and voters wishes in between elections.

  11. Awesome! I just got the SAF / Calguns email (I’m a member) about 30 minutes before the TTAG post. Perhaps the phone calls, emails, donations and such are actually doing some good?

    Anyways, I’m still planning on moving out of CA in 5-10 years because the taxes are terrible.

      • As a member of all three, more $$$ on the way and letters/emails on request to support the coordinated effort.

  12. Hahaha, Yoyo County gets CCW. The People’s Republic of DAVIS gets CCW. To really appreciate this, you have to realize Davis is Hippy-Dippy, Touchy-Feely enough to give any other place in the country a run for their money. Priuses, “fairy” dust, and bicyclists with no sense of self-preservation abound.

      • Well, Prius-bicyclist crashes are rather common, although the Prius is usually either parked or sitting at a stop light when it happens.

      • I’ve actually seen a dead person in a Prius. Those things are electrical nightmares in bad crashes.

        • Ever see a Smart car in a wreck? Those things scare me on the freeway. They look about the size of one of the tires on my crown vic.

        • Actually I’ve seen a bunch of Smart cars in crashes. There was one where a man was texting his boyfriend, ran off the road, and hit a disabled motorist on the right shoulder. The disabled motorist was working on a classic Chevy car. The impact caused the gas tank to ignite, pushed the burning Chevy on top of the disabled motorist, and he burned to death under his own car.

          The driver of the Smart car sustained minor injuries. He was charged with manslaughter / gross vehicular negligence, and felony DUI.

    • It wasn’t that long ago though that Davis still had a good solid blue collar population though. It didn’t really go full retard until the late 80’s after the cannery closed and they ran all the light industrial out of town. Then all those crappy east Davis homes ended up changing hands just as real estate was going through the roof and priced out the hold outs. I bought a good sized house (4/3 2800 sq ft w/ a pool on a big lot) in central Davis in 83 for $140k. That thing sold for over 700k like 15 years later.

  13. The most significant thing about this, since they sadly did not see fit to address the GMC aspect, is that it is highly unlikely they would issue this decision if an en banc was going to be granted. It is still possible, if either they grant the AG interveno status or a judge sua sponte asks for it, and 13-14 judges vote to agree to hear it en banc. But I doubt that will happen in light of this.

    • Never, ever underestimate the ability of Democrats to fvck with the law as long as they have a phone and a pen.

      It ain’t over ’til it’s over.

    • “Good cause” is only one way to make life difficult, good old red tape is another. While they are not States, DC and NYC must be assumed not to deny residential handgun permits arbitrarily these days, after Heller and McDonald, but by all accounts, they make the process costly and painful enough to deter a lot of potential applicants. I recall that SAF has a lawsuit about permit fees in NYC – one can but wonder how that will turn out.

      • I believe that lawsuit was lost (but being appealed to SCOTUS). I think NYC came up with numbers showing that the actual cost for them to process a premise permit was more than what they charged the resident, so, according to the judge, the fee was acceptable.

        I could be wrong on that though. The case I was thinking of was Kwong v Bloomberg (now Kwong v de Blasio),

        • That was my understanding too. The thing is, even if the “costly” part were not there, there would still be “painful”. And there is more: I remember seeing somewhere that if you only have NYC residential permit, you can only take the gun for practice at a NYC range – not even elsewhere in NY State, and definitely forget out-of-state competitions. At the time there was a lawsuit over that too, I have no idea what its status is.

  16. Now lets sue for reciprocity or non resident permits. My first amendment still applies in California being a Texas resident. However no second?

    • If these two rulings stand (they’re not challenged and overturned), then I would think that ALL California counties would be “taken care of”. A ruling in any United States Court of Appeals applies to every district in their jurisdiction. So these rulings apply to all of California, and would also apply to Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Washington, and Oregon, because they also are under the 9th Circuit’s jurisdiction.

  22. We here could use Mr. Alan Gura’s services on this side of the Mississippi. PPPLLLLLEEEEEEAAAASSSSEEEE!

Comments are closed.