NEWS, FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contacts: Lt. Jeff Hallock, 714.904.7042, JHallock@ocsd.org; Emily Osterberg, 714.647.1840, EOsterberg@ocsd.org
Sheriff’s CCW Policy Following Court’s Grant of Rehearing in Peruta Case
SANTA ANA, Calif. – (March 27, 2015) – On Thursday, March 26, 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals voted to rehear “en banc” the case of Peruta v. County of San Diego. In February 2014, a three-judge panel split 2 – 1 and held that a Sheriff’s policy requiring more than “self-defense” or “personal protection” to meet the “good cause” requirement for a concealed weapon license violates the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms.
In remaining consistent with the law and respecting the court’s previous opinion, Sheriff Hutchens has been issuing CCW Licenses and citing the three-judge panel opinion as authority for the “good cause” requirement. Based on yesterday’s vote to rehear the case, the three-judge panel opinion can no longer be cited as authority. In response to the court’s decision, Sheriff Hutchens will require all new applicants and those applicants currently in the process to articulate their safety concerns and provide supporting documentation in accordance with Orange County Sheriff’s Department Policy #218 – License to Carry a Concealed Weapon. CCW Licenses issued under the previous Peruta standard of “good cause” are lawful and will NOT be recalled; however, supplemental “good cause” may be required at time of renewal.
Prospective CCW License applicants are required to submit “good cause” statements and supporting documentation with their application in accordance with Policy #218. Applicants currently in the process will be contacted by the Sheriff’s Department’s CCW Unit to request additional information, if required. Applications approved after Thursday, March 26, 2015 will be subject to the “good cause” requirement in Policy #218.
Sheriff Hutchens is committed to remaining consistent with the law while respecting the opinion and decisions of the court. The Department will remain vigilant in monitoring the progression of this case through the court process as we remain unwavering in our commitment to deliver service to the citizens of Orange County.
For additional information and Orange County Sheriff’s Department Policy #218:
http://ocsd.org/about/info/services/ccw
# # #
The potential flip-flop of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sets up a very interesting conundrum. The right to KEEP AND BEAR arms pursuant to the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, is a fundamental right, that demands strict scrutiny for all infringements. Like it or not, what that means is, if the Sheriff requires all applicants to show good cause now, after permitting dozens or more to get CCW’s without showing good cause, there is the small problem of EQUAL PROTECTION under the 14th Amendment ot the US Constitution. Anyone now denied a permit for failing to show “good cause” may have a litigable lawsuit in federal court for violation of Equal Protection. Sandra may be standing on the precipice of extremely costly federal lawsuits that will suck lots of dollars out of OC’s county treasury. Her suggestion that the law has changed won’t protect her form Equal Protection challenges.
It is an equal protection violation but concealed carry is not a fundamental right and the courts have held that unless the challenged law involves a fundamental right or a suspect classification such as race then it is subject to rational basis review. Rational basis review is the court’s way of saying that the government always wins.
The right to BEAR arms is a fundamental Constitutional right. The precise manner in which a government accedes to the Constitutional right may or may not reach the core of the fundamental right. So true, concealed carry, as such, may not be a fundamental right, but carrying IS a fundamental right. Since the legislature banned open carry, that’s why the 9th Circuit panel originally did away with the good cause requirement, because without open carry, there was NO carry potentially. So therefore concealed carry rises to the level of a fundamental right because if that is denied arbitrarily, than carrying at all is denied in California. That’s the crux of the issue. So by permitting concealed carry by some, and not by others, the 14th Amendment violation is meaningful. Unless of course the legislature reverses course and permits open carry once more. My two cents may not be worth much more than that, but there it is anyway.
Well you certainly highlighted the central illogical flaw in the Peruta decision. If there is no right to concealed carry AND there is no right to openly carry firearms then there is no right to carry a firearm. One needn’t exactly draw a Venn diagram to figure that out.
There is a right to bear arms. Assuming that to carry a weapon concealed falls within the historical definition of bearing arms (it doesn’t) then does prohibiting concealed carry infringe the right to bear arms and if it does, how?
Pingback: good cause now required in OC. 3/26/15. - Page 2 - CalCCW
Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don’t carry a purse. Besides, Open Carry is the right guaranteed by the Constitution, concealed carry can be banned.
http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org
“[A] right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.”” District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) at 2809
“[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms (art. 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons…” Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 US 275 – Supreme Court (1897) at 282.
“In Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the “natural right of self-defence” and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right…Likewise, in State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann. 489, 490 (1850), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that citizens had a right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.”” District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) at 2809
“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152-153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489-490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251…” District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) at 2816
Right to carry?? Go to the voting booth. It is not only the sheriff it is your state legislature. I feel a CCW should be given to anyone that can pass the back ground and does the training. Follow what is going on around the state on CCWs. http://www.facebook.com/californiaccw
I went to the Federal Courts, a place where there is actually a chance to restore the Second Amendment right to Open Carry in California. Were it up to me, there would be no concealed carry anywhere. As my Open Carry lawsuit includes a challenge to California’s two CCW licensing laws, I am asking in my appeal that both be overturned which means no CCW for you.
The legislature out lawed Open Carry. If that was unconstitutional how did it pass? I am not an attorney. I had a chance to meet the to two guys form San Diego that caused all the problems for the open carry people. My opinion is thank god the legislators did something. They were crazy people. Last time I spoke to my local legislator he felt that the background checks that are done for CCWs wood weed out some of the crazy people. What are the two CCW bills numbers. I am only aware of the penal code 26150-26225