On May 23, 2011, the CRPA Foundation and a number of San Diego residents filed their opening brief in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in their appeal seeking to overturn a Southern District Court ruling from December 10, 2010 that upheld San Diego Sheriff William Gore’s restrictive and unfair policies in issuing permits to carry concealed firearms. California law allows a permit to carry a concealed firearm (CCW) to be issued if an applicant has “good cause.” The lawsuit asserts that under the Second Amendment, a desire for self-defense must constitute “good cause” for the issuance of a CCW, and that Gore’s requirement that an applicant demonstrate some special need or a specific threat in order to get a CCW is an unconstitutional restriction on the right to keep and bear arms; specifically, the right to carry a loaded firearm in public for self-defense. In a nutshell, the District Court held that rather than needing a CCW to defend oneself, since California law allows unloaded open carry of handguns one can carry unloaded and openly, and then act pursuant to a California law that requires you to wait until you are about to be attacked, then load your firearm ( see Cal. Pen. Code section 12031(j)). Obviously, that is not an effective way to exercise your fundamental, individual constitutional right to defend yourself, nor to bear a firearm under the Second Amendment. The brief points out that under any potentially applicable constitutional standard, banning people from carrying a loaded firearm in public unless they can show a special need does not pass Second Amendment muster. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are asking the Ninth Circuit to overrule the district court’s decision. ( See opening appellate brief here ). The plaintiffs include several individuals who were either denied CCWs or do not qualify under the Sheriff’s strict issuance standards, as well as the CRPA Foundation. Copies of the court filings in the lawsuit can be viewed at . The lawsuit and appeal are being funded by the NRA-CRPA Foundation Legal Action Project (LAP).

Twitter Follow

Follow us on

Contact Us

ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT:  This communication or portions thereof may be considered "advertising" as defined by Section 6157(c) of the California Business and Professions Code or within the jurisdiction in which you are viewing this.  Nothing in the discussion above is intended to be a representation or guarantee about the outcome of any legal proceeding in which you may be involved.  By providing the information above in this format, Michel & Associates is not soliciting you to hire it to handle a specific legal matter you may currently have or be anticipating commencing in the future.  Notwithstanding the discussion above, you should not act or refrain from acting on the basis of any content on this site without seeking appropriate legal advice regarding your particular circumstances from an attorney licensed to practice law.  This communication is informational only and does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Michel & Associates.  Michel & Associates's attorneys are licensed to practice in California, Texas, and the District of Columbia.