Guest Commentary
by Michael A. Schwartz
As I wrote last Thursday, San Diego County Sheriff Bill Gore lost in a big decision regarding your right to bear arms. So what now? Sheriff Gore has 14 days to make a decision on what to do..These are the options to Gore and their financial impact on San Diego County:
1. The plaintiff’s attorney is coming after the County of San Diego for around $300k for legal fees owed if Gore accepts this current decision. Gore has already implied to the public and the local Republican Central Committee that he would accept the decision once issued.
2. Gore can decide to reject the ruling and ask for an 11 judge panel made up of judges on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. This option will add another approximately $100k in legal fees the County would have to pay. The 11 judge panel could re-write the decision, accept the decision as-is, or edit the decision.
3. If the 11 judge panel edits or re-writes the decision, the plaintiff will take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court where the plaintiff will win unless the majority of judges on the Supreme Court decide to reverse their own decision affirmed in Heller vs. D.C. and reaffirmed in McDonald vs. Chicago.
If the case goes to the Supreme Court, this will increase substantially the amount to be reimbursed by San Diego County to the plaintiff’s attorney. The cities of Chicago and Oak Park, Illinois had to split the $1.3 million legal fees for the McDonald case (as seen here).
4. One other option for Sheriff Gore is to ask to skip the 11 judge panel and go straight to the Supreme Court. This would save approximately $100k in legal fees noted in #2, but still approach and possibly exceed the $1 million shown in #4.
Gore is the one to make the decision, but the San Diego County Board of Supervisors holds the purse for the Sheriff’s Department. Financially and legally, the best option for the Sheriff is to implement the decision he now has.
Now with guidance from the Court, accepting “self-defense” as “good cause” for issuance of a concealed weapon permit is following the state’s law; it eliminates the need to risk spending hundreds of thousands more in public funds.
Sheriff Gore’s argument all along regarding this case, both privately and publicly, has been his desire to follow the ambiguous state law. With the Peruta vs. Sheriff Gore decision, he has his guidance. “Self-defense” fits the California’s requirement of “good cause” when issuing a permit. Abiding by the Court’s decision is the least costly option and provides the legal cover Sheriff Gore sought.
Schwartz is a Second Amendment activist.
Comments 14
Michael,
No BS…this is superb reporting. Thank you.
OK, curtsey is over…reloading… 😉
In a previous post, I postulated if you would ever consider a GOP (any) candidate that was for increased gun control…everything else being as you agree politically, would you consider endorsing or supporting said candidate?
Dear Sheriff Gore,
You lost! start issuing permits, but most importantly, don’t make the County of San Diego waste more valuable money.
Could not believe the 9th was pro 2nd, #elated
In a very real way, Sheriff Gore is about to commit San Diego County to having to pay a $1 million or more of our tax money. It seems like the County Board should have a say and even a vote if the sheriff is going to use this kind of money to pursue legally limiting the interpretation of the Second Amendment considering he already has guidance from the Court.
FF, Sheriff Gore was recently endorsed by the Central Committee. I’m not on the Central Committee, but I spoke to many who are and asked them not to endorsed based on a number of things. The reality is Sheriff Gore was elected by the people, is a Republican, and isn’t embroiled in some kind of controversy. He came and spoke to the Central Committee in order to address his policies on issuing concealed weapon permits. Many voted in favor of endorsing Sheriff Gore because he expressed to them that he would follow the Court’s decision once issued. And here it is.
I will not campaign for Sheriff Gore or contribute to his campaign, but I get why the County Party endorsed him. There was no other candidate to consider and it is not the County Party’s job or role to enforce the platform and I understand that. Though what Central Committee members base their vote to endorse on is up to them, it is an unrealistic expectation to expect platform purity in the endorsements. Had the people voted for a sheriff that was a supporter of issuing concealed weapon permits, that sheriff would have been endorsed too, I am sure.
I cannot imagine a scenario where I personally would help someone campaign that was in favor of more gun control. But I have helped people campaign who are ambivalent on the issue or want to lower gun crime by making sure dangerous/mentally ill people can’t own guns. Or want to improve neighborhoods and the jobs market so people don’t turn to crime, etc. for example Carl DeMaio wants to “improve enforcement for background checks”. This mirrors what the NRA has been saying for years. There are flaws in the background check system. So is Carl at the range every weekend and demanding more support for the Second Amendment? No, Carl has left platitudes to the pundits on TV, rather, he is trying to solve a problem.
Nice summation, Michael. Thanks for it.
I just heard from a little birdie that the County has pulled out of the case leaving Sheriff Gore as the sole defendant. I do not know what that means. I also did not know they coulkd do that.
Maybe it could mean the Sheriff is moving forward? Or that this is the way the County lets Sheriff Gore know that they do not support moving forward?
Anyone with any light to shed, please do.
Hi Michael,
I went back and looked at all the pleadings filed by defendant in district and appellate court. The county counsel filed pleadings on behalf of Sheriff Gore. The pleadings never said they were filed on behalf of the county of San Diego. So, maybe the county never actually filed an answer or motion even in the district court. Which I don’t quite understand because the county was named as a defendant. I suppose it doesn’t matter since the Sheriff is given the responsibility of making the permit decisions but it strikes me as odd. I’d be curious to know what your little birdie has to say about this.
It’s confusing to everyone. I’ve spoken to people at the County and people with the plaintiff’s attorney.
Everyone agrees that the defendant all along is “San Diego County Sheriff William D. Gore, individually” which is how it is stated on the decision.
Frankly, the plaintiff’s attorney doesn’t care as long as they have a defendant to win against in the Supreme Court which is absolutely where they want this case fast tracked to.
But the attorneys for the plaintiff are trying to define the scope of the right to “bear arms”. That is their job and stated agenda. By fighting the current decision, the sheriff is redefining his role to an activist looking to limit the scope of an American’s right to bear arms. Not sure “activist” is what people want in their sheriff. And I am positive they don’t want him spending $1 million of tax payer funds to further his personal agenda.
The complaint filed by plaintiffs lists two defendants: the County of San Diego and Sheriff Gore, in his individual and official capacity. The County never filed an answer or motion to dismiss. Only Gore filed, represented by county counsel. I wonder if the County was never properly served with the complaint by plaintiffs. Or somebody at the County made a mistake by not answering or moving to dismiss on behalf of the county.
But I think you’re right that it shouldn’t matter. Gore is the county official who implements and sets the rules for issuing permits in compliance with CA’s CCW law and he fully litigated the case and lost.
By the way, the Los Angeles Daily Journal today published a guest column by Erwin Chemerinsky. He’s a noted constitutional scholar and big time liberal. He criticized the Peruta decision as judicial activism. (Such a typical and tired progressive argument tactic.) His analysis was deceptive, misleading, and pretty infuriating. It’s not online but when it is, I’ll post a link here or on Facebook for you to see.
Chemerinsky when asked about Roe vs. Wade in an interview said, “Judicial activism is the label for the decision that people don’t like.”
Interview: http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/commentary/20080918_ali.html
He was also very much against the Heller vs. D.C. decision. So…no surprise.
As a retired airline captain, having been exposed to firearm laws in many states, I have some comments.
I have hopes that California will go the route of most other states where CCW permits are issued by a state issuing agency, like in the other 42 states with “Shall Issue” laws.
This will take away the power from sheriffs.
Sheriffs in California rule their counties like fiefdoms, opening the opportunity for activist sheriffs to enforce their own agenda for political career purposes.
This case in san Diego exemplifies my point. This sheriff does not care about the fact that he is hopelessly wasting the tax payers money, simply because t is not his money.
If you look at the trends, it is safe to bet he will lose if he continues in his path. Impacted ego at work. He will not lose a dime of his own, tax payers will!
The second amendment is clear in its intent, even though it has been spun and twisted by many, the right of an individual to defend himself/herself.
No sheriff should be the broker of that right. Just like other rights, such as he the right to free speech.
If you have a clean background and can exercise safe firearms handling capabilities, as well as not being one of the thousands of mental cases who got dumped on to society, due to lack of mental health funding, you should be able to exercise the right to self defense even if need be, to carry a concealed firearm in public.
Thank You.
The Sheriff has decided NOT to go to en banc (the 11 judge panel):
http://apps.sdsheriff.net/press/Default.aspx?FileLink=fce6dc6b-e015-4c15-8d6c-4e38b4e212e1
I believe that the Court could still put the decision in front of an 11 judge panel before Feb 27th. I also believe that the sheriff could still take the decision to the Supreme Court for the next 3 months, but is saying he won’t.
It sounds like the best thing to do is:
1. Buy and train with a pistol if you haven’t already
2. Complete the CCW application from the sheriff’s website
3. Call the sheriff’s office and schedule a time to go turn your application in
4. Follow their direction and report anything odd to the NRA
Yay!