LEGAL
Court Cites
to CPCA
Amicus Brief
in CCW Case
By Martin J. Mayer, General Counsel
California Police Chiefs Association
In the Fall 2013 edition of the California Police Chief magazine,
we discussed the potential impact the California Police Chiefs
Association (CPCA) has when it submits amicus curiae briefs in
the appellate courts, supporting various law enforcement issues.
We set forth and discussed several
cases where CPCA submitted such briefs.
In one particular case, Haskell v. Harris,
which dealt with the right to take DNA
samples from those arrested for felonies,
an en banc (11 justices) Ninth Circuit U.S.
Court of Appeals upheld the legality of
the California law and set forth reasoning
which mirrored the legal arguments presented by CPCA.
The thrust of the article, in the California Police Chief magazine, was that CPCA’s
advocacy in litigation will, frequently,
have a positive impact on the outcome of
court decisions. Obviously, the courts do
not always agree with the positions set
forth by CPCA, but it is always considered
by the courts in reaching their rulings.
CCW Decision
As many of you already know, the
Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
recently ruled 2 – 1, in Peruta v. County of
San Diego, that California’s law requiring
the articulation of “good cause” to secure
a permit to carry a concealed weapon
(CCW) was an unconstitutional infringe-
ment on the 2nd Amendment’s right to
keep and bear arms.
When San Diego County and the San
Diego Sheriff were first sued by Edward Peruta, who had been denied a CCW permit,
they asked for amicus curiae support from
the California Police Chiefs Association
(CPCA), the California State Sheriffs’ Association (CSSA), and the California Peace
Officers’ Association (CPOA). All three
associations joined together and the firm
of JONES & MAYER, as general counsel to
the associations, prepared and submitted
a brief supporting the San Diego Sheriff’s
decision to not issue the CCW permit.
The thrust of the amicus brief was that
the requirement by the State of California
(it is not a city or county requirement) that
an applicant articulate “good cause” for
a permit to carry a concealed weapon did
not unreasonably infringe on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. The
argument was, basically, “different strokes
for different folks.”
The brief argued that what constitutes
“good cause” in one part of the state, for
example a rural community with limited
law enforcement support available, may be
very different from what constitutes “good
cause” in a densely populated urban community. Furthermore, it is the duty and responsibility of the municipal police chief or
the county sheriff to makes those decisions
in order to provide for the public’s safety in
their respective communities.
CPCA did not argue against the issuance of CCW permits, nor has it ever taken
that position. CPCA has always advocated
for reasonable regulations regarding handgun possession. In fact, it’s position is similar to what the U.S. Supreme Court held
in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570
(2008), and which the Ninth Circuit itself
states in the Peruta decision, namely that
“regulation of the right to bear arms is not
only legitimate but quite appropriate.”
The Ninth Circuit went on to say
that “(w)e repeat Heller’s admonition that
nothing in our opinion should be taken to
cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions –
or carriage – of firearms by felons and the
mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as
schools and government buildings, or law
imposing conditions and qualifications
on the commercial sale of firearms. Nor
should anything in this opinion be taken
to cast doubt on the validity of measures
designed to make the carrying of firearms
for self-defense as safe as possible, both to
SPRING 2014 | California Police Chief
7