A court ruling that dramatically loosened California’s restrictions on concealed firearms came closer to taking effect Wednesday, as an appeals court quashed legal maneuvering that might have staved it off.

As a result, sheriffs all over California — including the Bay Area, where many are reluctant to grant concealed-carry permits — could soon have to hand them out based on nothing more than the applicant’s stated wish to carry a gun for self-defense.

Currently, some sheriffs require applicants to prove a specific threat to their safety requires a concealed weapon while other sheriffs don’t. Those in most urban counties hand out permits by the dozens; those in many less-populated rural counties hand them out by the thousands. The court ruling involved a San Diego sheriff’s restrictions.

The state is one step closer to removing the concealed weapons permit decision from police chiefs and sheriffs, said Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California. “We’re starting to smell the hint of freedom in the air, and it smells good,” he said.

But the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which like California Attorney General Kamala Harris had tried to intervene in the case, said Wednesday’s ruling was “incorrect and contrary to 9th Circuit and Supreme Court precedent.”

The shooting deaths of unarmed teenagers Jordan Davis and Trayvon Martin by licensed concealed-gun holders — both in Florida — highlight the dangers of restricting law enforcement’s control over granting such permits, said Jonathan Lowy, director of the Legal Action Project for the Brady Center.

“We think San Diego and any other city has the right to reasonably restrict the carrying of loaded, hidden handguns in public, and we are confident that position will ultimately prevail,” Lowy said, adding his group is “weighing all of our legal options in this case.”

The ruling stems from a San Diego case in which gun-rights activists challenged a sheriff’s strict guidelines for permits. The case reached the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in February sided with the gun rights activists on a 2-1 vote; the San Diego sheriff said he would not appeal.

Alarmed, Harris, the Brady Center and two police groups sought permission to join the case so that they could take over the appeal, keeping the ruling from taking effect. On Wednesday, the court — in a ruling from judges Diarmuid O’Scannlain and Consuelo Callahan — said it’s too late for them to join.

“Most importantly, the opinion never ‘draws into question’ the ‘constitutionality’ of any California statute” as Harris claimed, they found. “It only questions San Diego County’s exercise of regulatory authority under such state statutes,” the ruling states.

Judge Sidney Thomas dissented, saying his peers’ ruling “deprives one of the parties most affected by our decision the opportunity to even present an argument to us on an important constitutional question affecting millions of citizens.”

Even with Wednesday’s ruling, the February decision still won’t take effect until the case is sent back to the federal district court in San Diego. Harris and her allies still could seek permission to join the case from an 11-judge “en banc” 9th Circuit panel or from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Whether this case is final or not, appeals still pending in similar cases — including one from Yolo County — could still imperil this ruling, said Chuck Michel, attorney for the California Rifle and Pistol Association, which is among this case’s plaintiffs. “We would welcome Supreme Court review … to resolve this important issue.”

Harris’ office wouldn’t comment Wednesday except to say, “We are reviewing the ruling.”

State law requires concealed-carry permit applicants to show “good moral character,” take a training course and establish “good cause.” But it’s up to county sheriffs to define “good cause,” and sheriffs have set a wide range of standards.

The lawsuit, filed by Edward Peruta and several other San Diego County residents plus the California Rifle and Pistol Association, challenged that county’s interpretation requiring “a set of circumstances that distinguish the applicant from the mainstream and causes him or her to be placed in harm’s way.” Concern for “one’s personal safety alone is not considered good cause,” the county’s policy said. Applicants must provide documentation — such as restraining orders, letters from law enforcement or prosecutors — to prove a special need for self-protection.

A federal district judge had ruled that’s OK in order to protect public safety, but the appeals court reversed that ruling in February, finding that the county’s policy “impermissibly infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense.” The sheriffs in Alameda, Santa Clara and San Mateo counties have policies similar to San Diego’s, and all three said Wednesday they’re consulting their county counsels about what to do next. Likewise, the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s policies “will be modified to comply with the court’s decision should any changes be necessary,” said spokesman Jimmy Lee. He declined to describe the current policy.

Alameda County Sheriff Greg Ahern noted people still must pass background and criminal history checks, undergo psychological evaluations, take a firearms training course and pass a firing-range test in order to obtain permits.

Josh Richman covers politics. Follow him at Twitter.com/Josh_Richman. Read the Political Blotter at IBAbuzz.com/politics.