But wait, there’s more…

Calif. Agencies Told to End ‘Good Cause’ Requirement for Concealed Weapons Permit

Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta has advised California law enforcement agencies that the “good cause” requirement for issuing a concealed weapons permit is likely unconstitutional and should no longer be used.

The advice came in a legal alert on Friday to “all California district attorneys, police chiefs, sheriffs, county counsels and city attorneys” and follows a U.S. Supreme Court decision on Thursday overturning New York State’s “proper cause” requirement.

“It is the Attorney General’s view that the court’s decision renders California’s good
cause standard to secure a permit to carry a concealed weapon in most public places
unconstitutional,” wrote Bonta. “Permitting agencies may no longer require a demonstration of good cause.”

The Attorney General’s action was praised Saturday by the San Diego County Gun Owners Political Action Committee, a group that advocates for gun rights.

“Since our inception, we have been saying that the proof of good cause requirement is wrong and must go,” said Michael Schwartz, executive director of the group. “Removing arbitrary, subjective hurdles from the path for sane, trained, law-abiding gun owners to carry firearms outside the home for self defense will increase the number of people who can protect themselves from dangerous criminals.”

New Jersey and California are still going to try to make it difficult as hell to get a CCW permit but this is very close to them becoming shall issue.

I suspect a flurry of lawsuits that coming down the pipe at the state level to enforce the SCOTUS decision and make that last few may issue states into shall issue states.

It’s good that Clement and Murphy just started their own law firm, they will be busy for some time.

Now here comes the best part.  Once all 50 states and DC become shall issue, 50 state CCW reciprocity has a good chance of being real.

If the right to bear arms applies once I leave my home, it should apply once I cross state lines.

This is something that might happen in my lifetime.

Spread the love

By J. Kb

7 thoughts on “This is winning”
  1. For years, I’ve thought the only reason for showing “just cause” and “may issue” was to encourage bribes and other under the table payments. Everybody knows that the rich, liberal, elites in New York get permits if they want. Same with Jersey. Does anyone seriously think the mafia guys don’t carry?
    It’s the same dual-tiered justice system that gets conservative Jan 6 protestors who wandered into the capital as the police held the doors thrown into solitary confinement with no bail, no contact with lawyers and all the rest, while the lib lawyers who torched a police car are let loose. There’s only about 9 billion examples of that out there.

  2. My Sheriff (in California) has been pretty flexible on “good cause”: one neighbor was a landlord of a couple of houses who sometimes had to pick the rent in person and another sold split firewood and sometimes had to make deliveries in late afternoon/early evening – both said they were sometimes paid in cash and both qualified for unrestricted CCW permits. He only required a class (that was mostly about the laws on when you can legally use the firearm) and a paperwork fee (<$100, I believe).

    1. And then there’s, say, Santa Clara county.
      There are two problems with what you describe. One, sure, your sheriff is a great guy, but what happens when he is no longer in office?
      Two, more globally, and this is the crux of the matter for me, a May Issue defaults to “no” rather than “yes”; and that “no” is based on a subjective evaluation of the application. Whether you qualify for a permit should not depend on your mailing address or who’s behind the desk at the Sheriff’s Office.

      1. Why should you “qualify” for a protected right?
        The only rational interpretation of this ruling is that, since everyone “qualifies”, there can be no purpose to requiring a permit other than “registration”, which is also constitutionally prohibited.
        This ruling effectively mandates “constitutional carry” nation wide.

      2. I don’t disagree with your points. I was just showing that California was not wholly unified to the Left’s philosophy.

        Note: the Sheriff was just re-elected to another term earlier this month. He was sufficiently popular that no one ran against him.

    2. The bit about some sheriffs reminds me of a detailed discussion of “May Issue” in the LA area written by Neal Schulman (in “Stopping Power”, free online and very much worth reading). In Santa Monica, I believe, they had a board in charge of processing applications for permits. Similar to HI they prided themselves in granting only one or two permits over the course of several years.
      Then one of the members decided he wanted a permit. He didn’t dare apply locally, that would have looked too ugly even for Santa Monica. So he got his permit from the gun-friendly sheriff in, I think, Bel Air or one of those other super-rich parts of LA. Unfortunately for him, the sheriff told his friend Schulman, who as a columnist for the local paper (token conservative, I think) promptly published all the details. **oops**.

  3. I hope the SAF and FPC are looking for the ideal clients for the next round of lawsuits against states that will not issue Non-Resident Permits and not legally recognize out of state permits. Perhaps someone that lives in Connecticut and does business regularly in NYC, or AZ and California; that have been denied their right to carry across state lines? Maybe someone living in a state bordering Illinois?

    It will take time and lots more lawsuits. But I think SCOTUS will be more friendly to 2nd Amendment lawsuits with its current roster.

    Thank you, President Donald J. Trump.

Only one rule: Don't be a dick.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.