A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit handed gun owners a tremendous victory in February by recognizing the Second Amendment protects a right to bear arms outside the home. The decision also invalidated the San Diego County Sheriff’s policy of issuing concealed carry permits only upon a showing of extraordinary need for self-protection that would distinguish the applicant “from the mainstream.”
Following the decision, San Diego County Sheriff William D. Gore declined to appeal the ruling. This led the California Attorney General, the Brady Campaign, and others to file motions to intervene in the case so they could request rehearing before a larger panel of the Ninth Circuit or appeal to the Supreme Court. In the meantime, the panel’s decision was put on hold, although a number of California counties relented and changed their may-issue policies to shall-issue in recognition of the court’s holding.
On Wednesday, the same three-judge panel rejected the motions to intervene in the case. The court found that the would-be intervenors failed to timely file their motions. Noting the late stage of the proceedings and the fact that the case was over four years old, the court found that there was ample opportunity for earlier intervention in the case had the state or the Brady Campaign decided to act on it.
While the challenge in this case targeted San Diego’s interpretation of “good cause” for issuance of a permit, the court’s decision, if it becomes final, would affect the entire Ninth Circuit. No other jurisdiction under the court’s authority, including Hawaii and certain U.S. territories, could require showing of an extraordinary need for a person to exercise the right to carry a firearm for self-defense in public.
Nevertheless, the most recent order could be appealed to a larger en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit, and petitions for review of two other cases challenging “may-issue” requirements are currently pending in the Ninth Circuit. Until all three of these cases reach final judgment, the arbitrary “may-issue” carry permit systems in certain California jurisdictions, Hawaii, and elsewhere could remain in effect.
3 judge panel ruled that Ca (Hawaii likewise) "need" issue is unconstitutional.
This is only logical since Heller defined the 2nd amendment as "fundamental right" .......thus putting a "needd" requirement in place is illogical and unconstitutional. But we all know Ca and HI will roadblock as much as possible.
It not a done deal.....a judge within the circuit can ask to hear the issue En Banc....thus having to have the issue review by the whole circuit bench. If the AG, etc had been successful...they woukd have gotton a en banc review.
So until it is allowed to stand, or is reviewed en banc...we wait. If en banc doesnt agree with the 3 judge panel, the fight will have to continue. Seems likely to me the matter needs to go to SCOTUS to have them lay the hammer down on the 9th and on DC goatfuckery
Sad part is....guam passed ccw earlier this year. LOL?
Biba Guahan!! 
I'm just still amazed that the 9th circuit sided with The Constitution.
JIMMYNAKS - Biba Guahan!!
you spelled baba ghanoush wrong...delicious!
should only allow open carry
Moke - I'm just still amazed that the 9th circuit sided with The Constitution.
Only a 3 judge panel....add the rest and methinks ittl go opposite. So if any of them calls for it to be reviewed by the full circuit :(
It makes no sense what the antis say, never has. Pre-Heller I argued individual fundamental right.....and from there a logical flow says lesser restriction, shall issue or "constitutional carry.
The people argueing against me in class (includijg the profs) took the stance collective or state right.....which made no logical sense at the root and cant possibly survive honest historical and academic reseach.
Post-Heller.....even less logical footijg for restrictive gun regulation. Recall...R2KBA "pre-exists" the constitution and govt/counry. It is a natural or god-given right of man. As such, how can a broad legislative restriction have any legitimacy?
BOGGLES MY FUGGIN MIND!
he people argueing against me in class (includijg the profs) took the stance collective or state right.....which made no logical sense at the root and cant possibly survive honest historical and academic reseach.
Of course it makes no fucking sense...the WHOLE POINT of The Constitution and that amendment in particular is to protect AGAINST the collective or State...to keep them FROM infringing on your natural born rights as a human being.
We live in upside-down bizzaro world.
I dunno, just came back from a three day class with some of our brass and the word is CC might actually become a reality here. A lot has to happen before its a reality but it was interesting hearing the ninth circuits opinion and some of the brass' opinions on this subject. Probably will start with military/ex military and branch out from there. This is a big deal for this state and it will be interesting to watch as this progresses.
No offense to individuals within the department robo.....but its the fuggin brass that leading the roadblocking shitbaggery! As an imstitution it is anti in the name of officer safety and public good contrary to the foundations of nation.
I agree sarge, resistant to change is what it comes down to. The next decade will be interesting here for sure. I think CC is gonna happen before open carry does.
Robobear -
I dunno, just came back from a three day class with some of our brass and the word is CC might actually become a reality here. A lot has to happen before its a reality but it was interesting hearing the ninth circuits opinion and some of the brass' opinions on this subject. Probably will start with military/ex military and branch out from there. This is a big deal for this state and it will be interesting to watch as this progresses.
If it becomes allowed it would have to be across the board.....allowing a certain "class" b/c of mil/ex-mil status an ability to exercise a right, especially a "fundamental" right, would be an instant lawsuit.
Agreed. If it isn't across the board, then it's just a lesser amount of the current unconstitutional roadblocks.
i'm ex mil and support the unfairness if it happens@
you wanna carry? JOIN THE FUCK UP
yay
I never read that part in the constitution. But if you require a militia, I hereby announce the official creation of the HGDS militia.
Ahh, makes me recall arguments about "militia clause" being a "right" of the state to have militias. Slammed that one down their throats at university too and was told......actually I mostly wasn't told crap....*crickets :p They had no answer, response or argument. One person said I was mistaken or made it up. I produced a printout from .gov website LMAO! The prof knew I wasnt lying and just avoided/deflected and "lets move on"
US code, title 10 sec ????......been around for-eva! Look it up.
Militia= organized and unorganized militia. unorganized militia are historically required to have ready their own small arms and ammunition loadout....aka basic combat load. so the bullshit hyperbole claimed by the antis about how the NRA wants everyone to own rocket launchers, etc is again.....BOOOOLSHEET!
i just want an m60 w/ 50,000 rounds. that's all
I support!!