Law CRPA vs LASD (CCW case) gets partial injunction against LASD

[Librarian]

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.907347/gov.uscourts.cacd.907347.52.0.pdf

See also Kostas Moros on X/Twitter,

https://twitter.com/x/status/1826044220681105579

 

[JohhnyDeluna]

The best thing to come out of this is some kind of reciprocity. Although they gave state 30 days to figure out how to implement, but expect a stay by appeal.
Nevertheless it opens the door for reciprocity and may eventually force the state to do so (kicking and screaming).

 

[treelogger]

Reciprocity was explicitly NOT in the injunction.

The thing I see in the injunction is (a) no long wait times for the plaintiffs only (are they a few individuals, or all CRPA members?), and (b) the ability for residents of other states to apply. And (b) will be very hard to implement, since to much other law is tied into that. For example, how do non-residents register a gun in California? How does carrying a gun registered in another state get around California's enhancement for carrying unregistered guns? What county do they apply in? Or do we create a state-wide process for out-of-state residents? What happens if a non-resident CCW holder moves to another state, or to another county within their state? All these are complex questions that require law changes. And as Bruen has shown, a lower court can't just say "blow up the whole system and everyone can carry without any paperwork". Just figuring out the legal framework that allows non-residents to carry will take a long time, months or years.

Plus: This is only an injunction, not a ruling on the merit. It is only the first-level court, and can be appealed at least 3 times on the injunction, and then another 3 times on the main ruling. This will take years to work itself through the system.

On Reddit there is already one nutcase (a trucker from Alabama) who is sending e-mails to various county sheriffs demanding that they process his application now. That just demonstrates that he doesn't understand the legal system.

 

[JohhnyDeluna]

"

Court Issues Partial Injunction In LA CCW Case​

August 20, 2024

• Blogs

"CRPA has finally received a ruling on its motion for preliminary injunction in CRPA vs. LASD, our case challenging various issues with CCW permit issuance in California, including lengthy wait times, high fees, discretionary denials, the psychological exam, and nonresident carry.

In a mixed opinion, the Judge decided to grant limited relief on the waiting time issue, but only as to the two named plaintiffs. The Court agreed that whatever “lengthy wait times” may mean, clearly 18 months is too long.

The Court also granted relief on nonresident carry, ruling that California must allow nonresidents to apply for a permit, and ordered the Parties to come to a proposed judgment on how this should be implemented"

I beg to differ. As explicitly stated in this CRPA press release, the court did address reciprocity. It was not spelled out, only articulated as a constitutional right and gave the state a period of time to 'figure out how to implement'. I don't expect this to be implemented any time soon. I expect a higher court stay.
All I'm saying is a district judge made a generalized judgement and that opens the door for further deliberations down the road. That to me is a start, and a good thing.

 

[Malibu]

This will be held up for many years. I can see the current or a future Los Angeles County sheriff intentionally holding up the process, or outright saying that he will openly defy Bruen just to show that he can do it. Any angry response from the peons will simply be answered with “if you don’t like it, elect someone else”….
Justice Thomas and the Bruen decision didn’t go nearly far en. By condoning any form of permitting system, they have allowed governments to continue to screw the public.

 

[treelogger]

On the contrary, Bruen went too far. Read the Rahimi decision, and how it ultimately limits the applicability of Bruen's tradition/history/... method.

Here is my interpretation of Bruen as far as CCW is concerned: New York was granting no licenses at all. Just like the situation in DC pre-Heller and in Chicago pre-MacDonald, that violates the 2A. So Bruen said: You must allow carry. It can continue to be may-issue, as long as the conditions are not arbitrary but objective. It can require extra paperwork and licensing. It can be restricted and exclude some places, people, and situations. Simply prohibiting it completely or never issuing licenses goes too far.

 

[treelogger]

As explicitly stated in this CRPA press release, the court did address reciprocity.

Reciprocity means: If you have a license from another state, that license is valid in California. That is not in the decision. What is in the decision: If you are a resident of another state, you can apply for a California license. Matter-of-fact, the decision discussed reciprocity and explicitly rejected ruling on it.

 

[JohhnyDeluna]

I stand corrected; it's not reciprocity but opens the door for non residents. Still a good thing and opens the door for the possibility for non residents and even (eventually) reciprocity. I agree it WON'T happen any time soon. Probably years, or never. CA will fight tooth and nail. But you have to start somewhere. NY, IL, Ca and the few other states that deny reciprocity must be challenged and if we can maintain a conservative SCOTUS, it will eventually happen.

 

[Malibu]

However you choose to interpret it, ANY permit scheme will most certainly be abused by government. That I personally know of several individuals with absolutely 100% perfect backgrounds, and who currently hold security clearances of the highest order, who had to wait over two years for LASD to issue permission to exercise a constitutional right is proof positive of that. The CRPA lawsuit is a good action, however any meaningful change as a result will likely take several years at best. I will continue to financially support CRPA, and urge my fellow Americans to do so as well.
The “may issue” system is terrible, and while SCOTUS may have attempted to be rid of it, certain states will simply find other inventive ways to get away with keeping it. We are seeing that now.

 

[weimer20]

Weimer20 here. One of several plaintiffs in this case. Still having my 2A rights trampled on and quickly coming up on the 2 year mark since applying to LASD for my CCW. Complete “radio silence “ from LASD. Absolute travesty having to sue your government to exercise a constitutional right. As it stands now, I have family members that applied after I did who have been contacted for their interview. Looks as though the only movement I’m likely to see from LASD will come from a court order.

A huge thank you and shout out to K. Moros and team for standing up and fighting on behalf of all of us tha love, value, and respect our Constitution.

 

[Malibu]

^^^^^Hopefully at some point these questionable LE agencies will start to respect the constitution, instead of holding their nose and only respecting it where necessary in order to avoid bankrupting themselves.
If a citizen feels that they must go “sans permission”, I certainly can find no fault with them for that, and respect their decision. This crap has gone on for many decades too long.

 

[Deleted member 7975]

Hopefully, now that Trump has won and the Rs have taken the Senate and will hopefully take the House, we will get national reciprocity, including the right to carry the same firearms we can carry in our home states. For me, that would be a Canik Mete with a 20 round magazine and a threaded barrel. Of course, if non-residents could lawfully carry such firearms in states, such as California, the same would have to apply to residents.

 

[Malibu]

Hopefully, now that Trump as won and the Rs have taken the Senate and will hopefully take the House, we will get national reciprocity, including the right to carry the same firearms we can carry in our home states. For me, that would be a Canik Mete with a 20 round magazine and a threaded barrel. Of course, if non-residents could lawfully carry such firearms in states, such as California, the same would have to apply to residents.

Yes, that would be nice.
The bigger hurdle I see will be getting the RINOs corralled and making it happen. These sniveling pukes have four years to make a lot of progress; hopefully they won’t squander it. We will see.
Trump needs to remember those who screwed him the first time around, and not allow that to happen again.
Of course, best possible outcome would be the elimination of all permitting schemes entirely, but that isn’t realistic given the small margins we might have at the end of the day.

 

[weimer20]

Happy New Year! I believe it was September 23rd of 2024 when the proposed language of the preliminary injunction was submitted to the court in this case. A key point in this PI is the effective date of “90 days after” the order is entered for out of state folks to simply be able to apply for a California permit (with numerous conditions and qualifiers). Well, surprise! It’s now 2025 and the judge in this case hasn’t found the time or inclination to simply SIGN THE ORDER! I can think of no other Constitutional Right that is so blatantly disregarded by the the lower courts and the 9th CA in particular (where the 2nd Amendment sits on a shelf collecting dust).

Thank you to CRPA and Michel and Associates for their tireless efforts in the fight to uphold and protect our Constitution.

Here’s to the hope that 2025 grants us some relief from the endless erosion to our 2A rights. And here’s to the hope and prayer that we are all blessed with a happy, healthy, safe and prosperous New Year.

 

[weimer20]

Preliminary Injunction has finally been signed by the judge. There is now a convoluted mechanism available to “out of staters” to obtain a cow in Cali.

 

[Deleted member 7975]

Preliminary Injunction has finally been signed by the judge. There is now a convoluted mechanism available to “out of staters” to obtain a cow in Cali.

The injunction does not go into effect until 90 days after it was signed. There already are approved online courses available, so that will not be a problem. The question will be how much of CA Pen. Code section 26202 will sheriffs and chiefs of police attempt to apply.

 

[Malibu]

The injunction does not go into effect until 90 days after it was signed. There already are approved online courses available, so that will not be a problem. The question will be how much of CA Pen. Code section 26202 will sheriffs and chiefs of police attempt to apply.

It will be interesting to see how long it takes once you can apply. Hopefully the IA you apply with won’t drag it out like some, such as LASD.