Talk:Peruta v. San Diego County

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Peruta v. San Diego County article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Firearms Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

California Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

link to decision

There are two links to the decision, one in external links, one in the infobox hosted on wikipedia. The external links version seems to be more in line with the practice for other court cases, but I think it is redundant and confusing to have both. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

pov

An IP added a pov tag to this article. While certainly one may disagree with the ruling, for the pov tag to be valid we would have to be describing the case itself in biased terms. Please point out something that is not being described neutrally. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it. The editor who put that there did not even come to the talk to discuss the perceived issues. Some might disagree with the decision but The article itself is factual and neutral.-Justanonymous (talk) 13:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable conclusion

"Unless overridden, the decision will force California to become a shall-issue state in regards to concealed carry permits."

I don't buy this -- the California legislature could easily rewrite the entire permitting scheme to maintain the status quo. The existing law also sets out a "good moral character" requirement that sheriff's departments could just as easily fall back upon to block applicants, which would require a completely separate lawsuit to overturn. --Strongpoint (talk) 21:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"To be clear, we are not holding that the Second Amendment requires thestates to permit concealed carry. But the Second Amendment does require that thestates permit some form of carry for self-defense outside the home." - Taking that strictly, San Diego would already have been in compliance, because they do permit concealed carry - but the decision covers that too. "Thus, the question is notwhether the California scheme (in light of San Diego County’s policy) allows some people to bear arms outside the home in some places at some times; instead, thequestion is whether it allows the typical responsible, law-abiding citizen to bear arms in public for the lawful purpose of self-defense. The answer to the latter question is a resounding “no.”"

Sure, they could change the law to still technically be "may-issue", but if the ruling stands clearly the court has said that the average person ("responsible, law-abiding citizen") must have the ability to get a license. Certainly as far as Sandiego itself is concerned they are going shall-issue "Should the decision of the Ninth Circuit become final, the Sheriff's Department will begin to issue CCWs in situations where the applicant has met all other lawful qualifications and has requested a CCW for purposes of self-defense." Orange county has made a similar announcement

One of the other 9th cases, Kealoha, reinforces this interpretation "In Peruta v. County of San Diego,— F.3d —, No. 10-56971, 2014 WL 555862, at*18 (9th Cir. Feb. 13, 2014), we concluded that the Second Amendment provides aresponsible, law-abiding citizen with a right to carry an operable handgun outsidethe home for the purpose of self-defense " which unless overturned will probbably make Hawaii shall-issue too.

9th circuit jurisdiction Guam has explicitly gone shall-issue in the wake of the 9th's decisions.

Of course everything except guam is subject to an en-banc appeal, or the Supremes. The Supremes have been passing over gun cases recently though, so personally I think the circuit split (3rd Circuit Drake) is likely to stick around for a while. The timeline to do en-banc is quickly running out though (it may be run out already, the law is fairly confusing with 14 day 21 day and 90 day "clocks" and I have no idea which applies atm)MsGunner2 (talk) 14:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MsGunner2 (talk) 14:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It might be time to re-visit this phrase; when the decision to hear the case en banc was issued it vacated the appeals court's 3-judge panel decision. As such, that has already "overridden" the decision this phrase relied on. The possible outcomes of the en banc court's ruling could go just about anywhere 140.194.140.15 (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Structure

As a result of the court's decision, the Orange County Sheriff's Department has loosened requirements for obtaining a concealed carry permit. Instead of requiring the applicant to have "good cause", the applicant will only have to assert that a permit is needed for self-defense or personal safety.

The above paragraph seems orphaned -- it's out of place in the intro, and it covers exactly one of California's 58 counties. Several others have altered their permitting policies in the wake of the Peruta decision. Should this information be gathered under a subheading farther down the page?--Strongpoint (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think an "effects" section is appropriate where the various legislative and policy changes can be listed. MsGunner2 (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crucial typo

On June 9, 2016, the en banc court affirmed the lower court ruling, saying that "there is no Second Amendment right for members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public." [10]

It seems to me that the en banc court overruledItalic text the lower court ruling, not affirm it. I would just have edited this myself, but it's my first time here and wanted to check to see if I'm mistaken. Thephucpham (talk) 22:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is correct. The lower court ruled that there is no right. The 9th overrulled that. Then the 9th en banc reversed itself, and reaffirmed the lower court ResultingConstant (talk) 03:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's missing is that SCOTUS granted cert. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/16-894.htm jdege (talk) 03:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Circuit Split (?)

The article clearly states that the supreme court has—by refusing to take the case—let the 9th Circuit ruling stand. Just 2 days ago, however, the D.C. Circuit has ruled (in two companion cases, viz., Grace and the pink pistols v. District of Columbia and Wrenn v. District of Columbia that there exists a constitutional right to "shall issue."

I'm curious: Does this constitute a split in the circuit courts of appeals, and thus more greatly compel the Supreme Court to grant certiorari this issue?

Thank You. Pine (talk) 10:28, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes (Opinion). AHeneen (talk) 04:02, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was already a split. Moore v Madigan the case that gave Illinois concealed carry was already in conflict with the 9thResultingConstant (talk) 20:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good find, Constant!

So, even though there was already a circuit split, the Supreme Court refused to take the case. Is that typical? It strikes me as somewhat odd. Oh well, 3 circuit courts down, 10 to go, I guess. :)

Pine (talk) 12:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History: Trial? AC briefs & oral arguments?

The History section of the article begins with the 9th Circuit's 3-judge panel's decision. What about the litigation history before that? Phantom in ca (talk) 04:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]