Case Challenging California’s Yolo County Gun Carry Permit Law Brought Back from Dead

The Second Amendment Foundation
announces some good news today in a long-gestating case
challenging the gun carry permit laws of Yolo County,
California:

The Second Amendment Foundation and The Calguns Foundation
earned a significant victory today when the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals reversed and remanded the case of Richards v. Prieto,
challenging the handgun carry license issuing policy of Yolo
County, California, Sheriff Ed Prieto.

“Today’s ruling reinforces the Second Amendment’s
application to state and local governments, and will help
clear the way for more California citizens to exercise
their right to bear arms,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice
President Alan M. Gottlieb….

The case was originally filed in 2009 as Sykes v.
McGinness, and challenged not only Yolo
County’s policies, but Sacramento
County’s then-restrictive practices as well. SAF, Calguns and
two private citizens, Adam Richards and Brett
Stewart, continued pursuing the case against Yolo
County after Sacramento County agreed to relax its
policy….

The Richards case was argued at the same
time, and to the same panel, that earlier
decided Peruta v. County
of San Diego, a similar case challenging
overly-restrictive carry license policies. Yolo
County and Sheriff Prieto argued that their policies were
distinguishable from those struck down in Peruta, but
apparently the three-judge panel unanimously disagreed.

“The Ninth Circuit’s decision moves our Carry License Compliance
Initiative forward,” explained CGF Executive Director Brandon
Combs. “We’re already preparing the next phase of litigation to
ensure that all law-abiding Californians can exercise their right
to bear arms.”

Steven Greenhut wrote last month for Reason on the
other,
more well-known California carry permit case, Peruta v. San
Diego.

Second Amendment superlawyer Alan Gura first discussed this case
with me
in a Reason interview back in 2009.

The 2011 decision
that was reversed and remanded today, one that tried to kill
the case by claiming “regulating
concealed firearms is an essential part of Yolo
County’s efforts to maintain public safety and
prevent both gun-related crime and,
most importantly, the death of its citizens. Yolo
County’s policy is more than rationally related
to these legitimate government goals” and that while
“the scope of rights under the Second Amendment is
ambiguous and no doubt subject to change and evolution over
time. Nonetheless, even in light of Heller and McDonald, Yolo
County’s concealed license policy is constitutionally
valid.” 

Maybe not, and the court will have to
reconsider.

The out-now April print issue of Reason has a feature
by me on “Five Gun Rights Cases to Watch.”