While specifically aimed at Tucson’s gun ordinances, it would apply statewide:
HB 2517, approved Thursday by the House Judiciary Committee, would change all that.
It says any individual or organization whose membership is “adversely affected” by a law they believe is illegal can sue. Challengers who win are entitled to legal fees and damages up to $100,000.
The legislation also says the court can assess a civil penalty of up to $500,000 against any elected or appointed government official if a judge determines the violation of state pre-emption laws was “knowing and willful.”
And to make sure that resonates with city officials, HB 2517 forbids the city from reimbursing the council member or employee for that penalty. It even says the official has to bear his or her own legal fees.
Of course, while the committee has passed it, there’s still a long road to travel before the Governor signs it into law.
The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Peruta v. San Diego, released minutes ago, affirms the right of law-abiding citizens to carry handguns for lawful protection in public.
California law has a process for applying for a permit to carry a handgun for protection in public, with requirements for safety training, a background check, and so on. These requirements were not challenged. The statute also requires that the applicant have “good cause,” which was interpreted by San Diego County to mean that the applicant is faced with current specific threats. (Not all California counties have this narrow interpretation.) The Ninth Circuit, in a 2-1 opinion written by Judge O’Scannlain, ruled that Peruta was entitled to Summary Judgement, because the “good cause” provision violates the Second Amendment.
This certainly has ramifications for gun holders in “may issue” states such as NY and NJ. (BOTH STORIES
stolen courtesy of Alphecca)
With regard to both stories, it’s about f’n time!
h/t Jeff Soyer