California Atty. Gen. Kamala D. Harris will challenge a federal appeals court ruling that loosened carry-permit requirements in the state, even though San Diego County Sheriff Bill Gore, the named defendant in the case that triggered the ruling, decided not to appeal.
Unless overturned, the 2-1 ruling in Peruta would end arbitrary carry-permit denial by county law enforcement officials in California and perhaps other states.
Harris said during her announcement, “Local law enforcement must be able to use their discretion to determine who can carry a concealed weapon. I will do everything possible to restore law enforcement’s authority to protect public safety, and so today am calling on the court to review and reverse its decision.”
Chuck Michel, a lawyer for the gun owners who challenged the restrictions, opposes the AG’s intervention.
Michel said, “The Attorney General’s office was repeatedly invited to participate in this case both by Sheriff Gore’s attorney, and by the plaintiffs. The Attorney General declined to participate in the case, just as she has refused to get involved in similar cases challenging policies in other cities and counties that refused to accept self-defense as justification to get a license to carry a firearm in public to defend yourself and your family.”
“In fact,” he said, “when the Attorney General’s office was named as a defendant in some of those cases, it has successfully moved to be dismissed from the cases because the court has accepted the Attorney General’s argument that she is not the official vested with the authority of the state when it comes to administering these licenses – the sheriff is.”
If the 9th Circuit Court grants Harris’s motion to intervene, she then must have her petition for en banc review granted, and convince the en banc panel that the original panel comitted reversible error. Should the review be accepted and then fail, Harris could then petition the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. All of which could take years.
Texas Law Shield agrees with the 9th Circuit decision and disagrees with Harris’s decision to intervene. The county which lost the case didn’t want to go any further, and, in fact, has already loosened its permitting rules, pending final judgment in the case.