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.