Guest Commentary
by Michael A. Schwartz
As Richard Rider posted earlier, today the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued the decision linked here against San Diego County Sheriff Gore. In summary…Gore’s internal policies regarding issuing concealed carry permits are unconstitutional.
The case was brought by a part-time San Diego resident Ed Peruta. Ed decided he wanted to spend his golden years traveling across the country in his RV with his wife. In order to protect himself and comply with various state laws, Ed applied for concealed weapon permits in the various states he planned on spending time. All went well until he applied in San Diego, California, the city where he would spend the most amount of time. The San Diego County Sheriff’s office clerk wouldn’t even take his application.
According to California Penal Code 26150-26225 a person is issued a concealed weapon permit as long as the applicant is of good moral character (can pass a background check), good cause exists for issuance of the license, the applicant is a resident of the county, the applicant has completed a course of training, and pays all the necessary fees. The “good cause” part leaves a lot of room for interpretation and is left to the county’s sheriff to determine. Sheriff Gore decided “good cause” to be a business owner protecting cash or a specific threat (like the applicant had filed a restraining order against someone) or a member of the San Diego Honorary Sheriff Association (SDHSA). The SDHSA is a group whose members pay hundreds of dollars a year in membership fees to help raise money for the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department. The majority of residents who could pass a background check and took the two-day safety class (including a range test) would be denied based on their lack of “good cause”.
Ed didn’t have “good cause” according to Sheriff Gore and was denied a permit after fighting with them to even take his application. So Ed sued. The case picked up a few more plaintiffs including the NRA’s California affiliate the California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA) and lost in court. The judge decided that as long as San Diegans have the option to carry a firearm not concealed (referred to commonly as “open carry”), the sheriff is not compelled to issue a carry license. Most forms of “open carry” were banned by the Democratic Party controlled state legislature in 2011 so the case was appealed based on the new “open carry” ban. Arguments were heard and today a decision has been issued.
Much of the decision was based on the Heller vs. D.C. Supreme Court decision that affirmed the Second Amendment is a right of the individual and MacDonald vs. Chicago that affirmed the Heller decision is against the states too. A quote from the decision that sums it up well is, “Put simply, a law that destroys (rather than merely burdens) a right central to the Second Amendment must be struck down.” And that is what Sheriff Gore’s policies did; they destroyed a right.
It is important to understand that the NRA/CRPA made sure this case was against Sheriff Gore and not California. Sheriff Gore’s policies were found to be unconstitutional. Do they comply with state law? Yes. But so would issuing concealed carry permits. Sheriff Gore chose not to follow the Constitution and fought against those who brought it to his attention. He followed his own anti-gun prejudices, personal bias, and bigotry. What the Court has confirmed with this decision is that we are a country of laws, not men.
What does this decision mean to you the reader? Go to the SD County Sheriff headquarters and apply for your CCW. It’s your right. And join the NRA and CRPA.
Schwartz is a Second Amendment activist
Comments 12
Sheriff Gore made it clear that he intends to abide by the decision (although he was confident it would rule against the plaintiff). Watching his actions to see that they were consistent with his words
“Put simply, a law that destroys (rather than merely burdens) a right central to the Second Amendment must be struck down.”
I wonder if a similar argument won’t be made to strike down recently passed abortion restrictions in a number of states including Texas and North Carolina.
Gore says we cannot exercise our rights under the second amendment but it was okay for him and his bunch of federal agents to shoot and kill a mother holding her baby. Or did you all forget Ruby Ridge?
Sheriff Gore told me he wanted to issue CCW licenses, but the state REQUIRED him to demand “good cause”. I guess Sheriff Gore had received some really bad legal advice to come to that conclusion. Not only was he wrong, he was unconstitutionally wrong.
Sheriff Gore should be happy with this decision since the court showed him his error. He can now issue CCW licenses which is what he claimed he always wanted to do.
We will see if he was dishonest as well as wrong if he appeals the decision.
From Reuters:
“James Chapin, San Diego senior deputy county counsel, said that officials there were reviewing the decision and would consider an appeal to the full 9th Circuit.
He called the plaintiffs’ lawsuit an attempted “end run” around state law that essentially bars open carrying of firearms except by members of law enforcement or the military, as well as the restrictions on concealed carry.”
The case did not challenge state law. It challenged Gore’s policies. Any attempt to continue to fight this is prolonging the inevitable and costing the County more money in legal fee reimbursement to the NRA.
Many think the U-T is a conservative paper. It is, on the EDITORIAL pages. Not so much in the news department.
Look at their story on this court ruling today. It quotes several sources on how this decision (if upheld) will lead to a more dangerous California.
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/Feb/13/ccw-gun-conceal-carry-sheriff-opinion-peruta/?#article-copy
But what is important is what is NOT reported — it barely mentions that MOST states already operate under this ruling’s criteria — or are even MORE pro-carry than the decision mandates.
Nor does the story report the crime waves in these states resulting from widespread CWP’s issued. Of course, it doesn’t report that, because it doesn’t happen! Never has in a state that liberalizes its concealed carry restrictions.
Indeed, crime has consistently gone DOWN in such states. Yes, there are other factors affecting crime rates, but gun grabbers would gladly claim more guns = more crime — if only the statistics provided such a correlation.
BTW, aside from the “incomplete” reporting, it’s truly disturbing to read Chief Lansdowne saying that “studies have shown gun owners or their family members are more likely to get shot by their own guns than shoot someone else.”
That aspect has NOTHING to do with the experience of concealed carry OUTSIDE the home, where CWP violence is both rare and often justified. Most of the “in house” gun violence the chief refers to are SUICIDES. Tell me how the right to carry a weapon OUTSIDE the house is going to increase the suicide rate or domestic violence.
Nor does the chief mention that MOST successful gun uses require simply the BRANDISHING of the weapon — over 80% of the time, no shots are fired.
Either Landdowne is incredibly ignorant of a basic aspect of public safety, or he’s dumb as a stump.
I go with the first explanation — it’s amazing now ignorant parochial urban police chiefs — selected for political reasons — are concerning public safety in other states.
Okay, okay, I’ll concede one thing — Lansdowne is also a rather dim bulb. But at least he’s an IGNORANT dim bulb.
Texas has issued over 580,000 concealed carry permits. Gun grabbers assume that the result is that Texas is one gigantic “OK corral,” with shootouts over fender benders, bar arguments, etc.
Sadly (for the gun grabbers), the stats say otherwise. For instance, the FBI stats show that Austin is now the second safest major (over 500K) city in America.
Moreover, in 2011 only 00.2% of the crimes in Texas were committed by concealed carry permit holders, and not all of those crimes involved guns or violence.
http://www.beaufortobserver.net/Articles-NEWS-and-COMMENTARY-c-2012-12-22-264494.112112-Texas-study-Concealed-carry-permit-holders-commit-less-than-1-of-the-crimes.html
Not just Ruby Ridge Harold. He was the case handler for the two 911 pilots. Gore ordered the sniper hit. How Gore ever got this job , only Kolender would know for sure. And Kolender can no longer speak.
I voted against Gore’s endorsement.
In my opinion he had not upheld his oath to “preserve and protect” our natural rights in a fundamental area.
He had placed his personal interpretation of law above our Framers, men who were much more knowledgeble of natural law and liberty.
The average county in California has 7 CCWs per 10,000 residents. San Diego has 2. In some counties it is 140 to 190 permits per 10,000.
Nobody wants to go duck hunting when 5% of the ducks are armed.
I was present when the Sheriff stated he would submit to the ruling and I look forward to the Sheriff demonstrating his good moral character by keeping his word.
I think by challenging the sheriff’s policy the way it did, the suit was a clever end run around state law. The ruling effectively strips California’s good cause requirement of any meaning since good cause is now the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to bear arms in public for self defense. Smart strategy by the plaintiffs. And really stupid of the Democrats to pass a ban on open carry at the same time that CCW policies were being challenged. If that ban hadn’t passed, my guess is the result likely would have gone the other way.
As to what the Sheriff does, that will depend on whether his attorneys choose to ask for en banc review by the 9th Circuit or petition SCOTUS to take the case. I also wonder if Kamala Harris can intervene in the 9th Circuit at this late stage because of the rulings effect on state policy. I don’t know federal civil procedure so if anybody does know, please chime in.
Dave, negative about AG Harris. They talked about that in front of the 3 judges before they started the arguments.
Gore can take self-defense as good cause or not….either way does not violate state law.
Thanks for the info on intervention, Michael.