What an incredible display of idiocy and judicial activism. After this case was decided by a 3-judge panel for the defendent and the plaintiff refused to appeal, the 9th Circuit Court called for an en banc appeal of the case for no apparent legal reason. The 3-judge panel denied the en banc. Another judge of the 9th filed an en banc decision on the en banc appeal and gets a 9-judge panel to grant it. They then allowed Kamala Harris to intervene on the State of CA's behalf to take over as plaintiff when the CA DOJ previously refused to participate in the case. The en banc panel has finally released their decision after over 2 years of appeal process.
They decided that the 2nd Amendment does not protect a citizen's right to CONCEALED carry. They then said the U.S. Supreme Court should decide if citizens have any right to carry (open carry) and they would not give an opinion. CA currently bans open carry. So once again, CA citizens are prohibited from carrying both openly or concealed. CCW's are again subject to whatever the county Sheriff deems as "good cause" and whatever filtering process they choose.
The issues I have with the court's actions: 1) the 3-judge panel appropriately addressed the de facto gun ban that CA's gun laws have created. They recognized that open carry is banned and many counties just plain to refuse all CCW applications. The appeal purposely dances around this. 2) the en banc of the en banc is just ridiculous. They are second guessing the 2nd opinion of their own judges. 3) the Court agrees with San Diego that part of good cause must show that a person must "distinguish the applicant from the mainstream", meaning the average citizen does not have good cause.
Thoughts from those who have been following this?
Here's a link to the full opinion: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2016/06/09/10-56971%206-9%20EB%20opinion%20plus%20webcites.pdf