Dear Supervisors:
On Thursday February 13, 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion in the case of Peruta, et.al v. County of San Diego, et.al concluding that the State of California's requirement of "good cause," in cases where an applicant wants a firearm for personal protection, impermissibly infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense. In its opinion, the Ninth Circuit defined the issue on appeal as "whether a responsible, law-abiding citizen has a right under the Second Amendment to carry a firearm in public for self-defense." In so doing, the Ninth Circuit took an exhaustive look at the history of jurisprudence surrounding the Second Amendment, and more specifically what it means to "bear arms." It is clear, given the 2-1 split in this opinion, as well as the split among Federal Circuits across the Country, that there is no easy answer on which everyone will agree.
 
The decision by the Ninth Circuit has found that the Second Amendment requires that states permit some form of firearm carry for self-defense outside the home. Additionally, the Ninth Circuit went on to emphasize that "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession '—or carriage—' of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

Since becoming Sheriff, I have always maintained that it is the legislature's responsibility to make the laws, and the judiciary's responsibility to interpret them and their constitutionality. Law enforcement's role is to uphold and enforce the law. The legislature certainly has the power to amend California's firearm carry process, and the Ninth Circuit has the ability to bring its own motion to rehear the decision of the three member panel en banc. However, while the court's decision clearly involves a question of exceptional importance, and conflicts with decisions of other United States Courts of Appeals, the opinion provides clear guidance in the context of issuing CCWs in California.

Therefore, I see no need for me to petition for a hearing or rehearing en banc in order to be able to carry out my duties as Sheriff of San Diego County. As a result, I have advised the Office of County Counsel that I will not seek such a hearing.

Should the decision of the Ninth Circuit become final, the Sheriff's Department will begin to issue CCW's in situations where the applicant has met all other lawful qualifications and has requested a CCW for purposes of self-defense.

"Should the decision of the Ninth Circuit become final"

What could prevent this from not becoming final in the ninth circuit?

"Should the decision of the Ninth Circuit become final"

What could prevent this from not becoming final in the ninth circuit?

I have a friend that works at the Atty. Gen.'s office he has an interesting take on this.
He wishes that the Supreme Court got the case since it is conservative right now.
In a few years that will not be the case.
He would rather have the Supreme Court confirm it now rather than risking a liberal court making a different decision later

Legal scholar Steven Halbrook believes Peruta could be available as a possible selection for SCOTUS in either 2015 or 2016, depending on what happens with the Ninth Circuit en banc procedure. He said that Peruta is "clean" in that it only involves one issue, whereas some of the other cases being appealed to SCOTUS have multiple issues involved. He also said that because Paul Clement is attorney for Peruta that the Court would likely select that case due to the fact that they find attorneys for some of the other cases to present weak/arcane/bizarre legal arguments (e.g. Alan Gura... NOT mentioned by name by Halbrook).

Pretty much we just have to sit around and wait. Peruta filed his case in 2009. What're a couple more years? 

According to a post I read on calguns, the case will be remanded back to the federal court on March 6th.

Hopefully he's wrong and it just gets affirmed lol.  Everyone's waited long enough

Dave Kopel also pointed out that while he said he won't request re-hearing, there is little mention of or of not petitioning to the Supreme Court.

[No mention of the cost of renewal... but the initial cost, with the class time, would likely be around $300... kinda pricey for lower income people.]

punaperson remarked parenthetically,
I'm waiting for that to become a legal issue as well.  To me, there is a "pattern of behavior" which results in de facto, actual, and genuine infringement of a basic human right,  This  includes the high fees and the other difficult processes involved in obtaining permission to defend oneself in the most effective manner available.

But I ain't no lawyer, so what do I know?

Terry