|
''Peruta v. San Diego'' is a court case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit pertaining to the legality of San Diego County's restrictive policy regarding requiring documentation of "good cause" that "distinguish() the applicant from the mainstream and places the applicant in harm's way" (Cal. Pen. Code §§ 26150, 26155) before issuing a concealed carry permit. ==Details== Under San Diego's policy, a "'typical' responsible, law-abiding citizen in San Diego County cannot bear arms in public for self-defense" because by San Diego's definition, typical citizens fearing for their personal safety cannot '"distinguish () from the mainstream'" and receive concealed carry permits. (''Peruta v. San Diego'' (9th Cir, 02-13-14) p. 54.) California does not allow the open carry of firearms whether loaded or unloaded. (Cal. Pen. Code §§ 25850, 26155.) Thus, the court found San Diego County's restrictive policy in combination with California's denial of open carry ultimately resulted in the destruction of the typical law-abiding, responsible citizen's right to bear arms in any manner in public, thereby violating the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. Unless overridden, the decision will force California to become a shall-issue state in regards to concealed carry permits. The decision is written by Diarmuid O'Scannlain, with Consuelo María Callahan joining and Sidney Runyan Thomas dissenting, and affirms the right of responsible, law-abiding citizens to carry a handgun in public for lawful self-defense. The primary plaintiff, Edward Peruta, was represented by attorneys Paul Neuharth, Jr. from San Diego and Chuck Michel from Long Beach.〔(【引用サイトリンク】 url=http://www.kpbs.org/news/2014/feb/13/court-tosses-californias-concealed-weapons-rules/ )〕 The San Diego County Sheriff's Department has issued a press release dated February 21, 2014 stating it will not seek review of the decision by the entire membership of judges sitting in the Ninth Circuit, and "Should the decision of the Ninth Circuit become final, the Sheriff's Department will begin to issue CCW's in situations where the applicant has met all other lawful qualifications and has requested a CCW for purposes of self-defense." 〔(【引用サイトリンク】 url=http://apps.sdsheriff.net/press/Default.aspx?FileLink=fce6dc6b-e015-4c15-8d6c-4e38b4e212e1 )〕 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. On February 27, 2014 California Attorney General Kamala Harris filed a petition for en banc review of the decision. As the state was not a formal party of the case, her action is not an appeal, but merely a request that the full court re-hear the case en-banc on its own initiative. The court denied Harris' petition on November 12, 2014.〔(【引用サイトリンク】title=MILLER: California attorney general tries to overturn gun carry ruling in 9th Circuit )〕 On December 3, 2014, the Ninth Circuit announced that a judge on the circuit made a sua sponte call for a vote on whether the case should be reheard en banc. The court gave the parties, and any Amici curiae, 21 days to file briefs setting forth their positions whether the case should be reheard en banc. On March 26, 2015, the Ninth Circuit announced that they will hear the case, along with ''Richards v. Prieto'', en banc, including setting aside the original rulings in the cases and stating that they are not to be used as case law. The cases were argued on June 16, 2015. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Peruta v. San Diego County」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|