Guest Commentary
by Michael Schwartz
You can’t find an intersection in San Diego that isn’t plastered with the name of at least one of the three candidates for the office of Sheriff. The attention given to this race is not surprising since there is no elected incumbent for the highest law enforcement position in the county.
We’ve seen some unusual twists and turns with some interesting endorsements over the last two years. The latest twist is an anti-endorsement, for lack of a better term. A notice has been issued from the lobbying arm of the National Rifle Association, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) authored by Executive Director Chris Cox. The alert does not endorse one candidate over another; rather it implores San Diego voters to “Vote Against Appointed Sheriff Gore!”
Mr. Cox goes on to say that Appointed Sheriff Gore’s anti-gun views “have no boundaries” for denying Carry Concealed Weapon permits (CCWs) to military veterans and CCWs have only been issued to “campaign contributors, personal friends, and select few others who fit his arbitrary definition of ‘good cause.’”
One candidate has the alert proudly displayed on his campaign blog:
http://sheriffjay.org/blog/archives/516
Appointed Sheriff Gore is currently named in a lawsuit based on his policies for issuing CCWs. “Peruta et al vs. San Diego County Sheriff William Gore et al” asserts that Appointed Sheriff Gore’s policies to determine CCW eligibility are unconstitutionally infringing on the fundamental right to keep and bear arms codified in the Second Amendment. An attorney for the plaintiffs told me that they are working with a group of plaintiffs from San Diego County and should have a decision by November.
This case is moving forward ahead of the Supreme Court’s issuance of its decision on another case the NRA is involved with, “McDonald vs. Chicago”, which is expected to incorporate the Second Amendment against the states. The decisions from the Supreme Court are expected sometime in June.