San Diego sheriff won't fight concealed-weapon ruling

[Jesus Malverde]

Source: SFGate

In an unexpected action, the San Diego County sheriff said Friday he will not seek a rehearing of last week's federal appeals court ruling that would eliminate most local restrictions on concealed-weapons permits in California.

Although state Attorney General Kamala Harris or the court itself could still intervene, the decision by Sheriff Bill Gore increases the possibility of a proliferation of handguns on the streets of San Francisco and other urban areas that now severely restrict them.

"We're concerned," said Deputy City Attorney Christine Van Aken. If the ruling stands, she said, "San Francisco officials are going to have to grant more permits and won't really have the discretion to make judgments about whether people should have concealed weapons."

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 on Feb. 13 that the Constitution's Second Amendment entitles law-abiding citizens to carry handguns in public for self-defense.


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/San-Diego-sheriff-won-t-fight-concealed-weapon-5257815.php

[Hoyt]

1. But, the court's idiotic ruling doesn't require yahoos to tote guns in public. So, we can expect

gun fanciers to be as responsible as they say they are by leaving them at home. That'll be the day.

[Duckhunter935]

4. Since they are required to be concealed

you should never know

[Hoyt]

5. Concealed or open, you guys could leave your guns at home. But you won't.

[quadrature]

8. Gore's political friends get CC licenses. do you comments

apply to those people?

[Hoyt]

9. Sorry, I'm not sure what you are asking.

If you are asking if I approve of Al Gore's friends getting CC permits, I do not anymore than I approve of some right/white wing yahoo getting them. We don't need people carrying gunz in public.

[quadrature]

10. Sheriff Bill Gore....nt

[Hoyt]

14. What has that got to do with you carrying a gun while standing in line at Chuck E Cheese?

[locdlib]

30. I absolutely agree with what you are saying, Hoyt.

The only reason these gun-toters insist on taking guns everywhere they go is so they can intimidate/kill anyone who does not fit their narrow little description of who belongs in 'merica. Their only purpose is to confront/intimidate/kill black/brown people because and then claim SYG. Michael Dunn, GZ, and people like them need to keep their asses at home if they feel that every time they go anywhere they need a gun. Fake bad-asses have always been and will always be dangers to society.

[awoke_in_2003]

33. I won't speak for Hoyt...

but I don't think they should get CC licenses, either. But your straw man says a lot.

[Duckhunter935]

23. I do 99.9 percent

but that fact does not matter to you

[savalez]

2. My bet is that it'll get to the full court. n/t

[hack89]

7. No - Heller is pretty clear on the matter

why go through the trouble just to get slapped down by the Supreme Court?

[savalez]

12. You again?

[hack89]

13. Yes. You did actually read the ruling, didn't you?

especially the part that talked about Heller?

It is pretty clear from a legal perspective.

[reACTIONary]

35. I've read the ruling...

... Heller leaves a lot of room for discretion outside of possession in the home.

[hack89]

36. Heller is like US v Windsor

the impact is going to be far more reaching than anyone initially thought. Windsor was supposed to only be about the Federal government with no impact on the state's ability to regulate marriage - after all, those state laws were viewed by voters as sensible policy. Now even conservative state judges and AGs have accepted otherwise.

Heller will have the same sweeping impact - as we saw from this ruling from the Illinois Supreme Court:

As the Seventh Circuit correctly noted, neither Heller nor McDonald expressly limits the second amendment’s protections to the home. On the contrary, both decisions contain language strongly suggesting if not outright confirming that the second amendment right to keep and bear arms extends beyond the home. Moreover, if Heller means what it says, and “individual self-defense” is indeed “the central component” of the second amendment right to keep and bear arms, then it would make little sense to restrict that right to the home, as “confrontations are not limited to the home.” Indeed, Heller itself recognizes as much when it states that “the right to have arms *** was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence.”

[reACTIONary]

37. It's going nowhere...

The Supreme Court disappointed gun rights activists once again Monday, declining to review two cases involving the rights of those under 21 to own handguns.... the court has declined to review unsuccessful efforts to challenge restrictions, such as tight controls on who may carry a firearm in public.

Supreme Court declines to hear gun law challenges

[hack89]

38. They will let states regulate CCW as long as it in line with Heller.

All it really means is that the states will all become shall issue in regards to CCW.

[Hoyt]

15. Heller was pretty close 5 to 4, thanks to right wing Justices. That will change.

But still, you guys don't have to tote. The court allows a lot of things, that are best not done. But, gun fanciers care little about society, only their own sick obsessions.

[hack89]

17. I don't tote - I live in a safe area

I own AR-15s for competitive target shooting

[DFW]

3. ".....for self-defense"

That is, until they use them for offense, in which case, they stop being "law-abiding," but that won't help the victims killed by the ruling by two judges on the Ninth Circuit.

[hack89]

6. Heller didn't leave much leeway for the 9th Circuit

Heller is one of those ruling, like US v Windsor, that will undercut most state laws that try to restrict civil liberties.

[billh58]

18. Heller left the practice of concealed carry

for another day, and the Ninth Circuit is pushing the envelope:

"2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

[hack89]

19. Heller confirmed a right to self defense

if you have the right to self defense, then you cannot have CCW laws specifically saying self defense is not a valid reason for CCW.

Most of the country has shall issue CCW - California was an outlier. That is why the 9th did not go out on a limb - it is bringing California back in line with the rest of the nation.

[billh58]

20. Heller confirmed the right to

use a gun for self defense in the home:

"Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home."

Heller was a narrow decision centered on the DC law, and did not affirm concealed carry for self defense:

"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

"Since this case represents this Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarify the entire field."

The current right-leaning SCOTUS may very well rule that the issuance of concealed carry permits is mandatory at some point in the future, but they have not made that ruling as yet. The fact that a sheriff decided not challenge the Ninth Circuit ruling does not preclude state legislatures from doing so.

[hack89]

25. And the 9th pointed out that a right to self defense limited to just the home is ludicrous.

what's the big deal here? California can still regulate CCW - except now it is not dependent on the capricious and arbitrary decisions of law enforcement.

[billh58]

27. I agree that Scalia is ludicrous,

but until the SCOTUS rules otherwise, what you see as "capricious and arbitrary" is viewed by voters as sensible policy. In the case of Hawaii, by a large percentage of voters on all Islands (YMMV).

[hack89]

29. Heller is like US v Windsor

the impact is going to be far more reaching than anyone initially thought. Windsor was supposed to only be about the Federal government with no impact on the state's ability to regulate marriage - after all, those state laws were viewed by voters as sensible policy. Now even conservative state judges and AGs have accepted otherwise.

I understand your frustration but Heller will have the same sweeping impact - as we saw from this ruling from the Illinois Supreme Court:

As the Seventh Circuit correctly noted, neither Heller nor McDonald expressly limits the second amendment’s protections to the home. On the contrary, both decisions contain language strongly suggesting if not outright confirming that the second amendment right to keep and bear arms extends beyond the home. Moreover, if Heller means what it says, and “individual self-defense” is indeed “the central component” of the second amendment right to keep and bear arms, then it would make little sense to restrict that right to the home, as “[c]onfrontations are not limited to the home.” Indeed, Heller itself recognizes as much when it states that “the right to have arms *** was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence.”

http://www.volokh.com/2013/09/12/illinois-supreme-court-second-amendment-protects-carrying-outside-home/

That is the same logic used by the 9th Circuit. And it will not be the last time you see it.

[billh58]

32. Thanks for the clarification,

but I am still not very worried about Hawaii becoming "armed to the teeth" as we proudly have the lowest percentage of gun owners in the country:

•50. Hawaii - 6.7% (of total population)

http://usliberals.about.com/od/Election2012Factors/a/Gun-Owners-As-Percentage-Of-Each-States-Population.htm

Most of the guns in Hawaii are used for hunting, and the other laws we have about registration and licensing won't be affected (I think). Hawaii has always had a tendency to buck the Mainland trend ever since its Monarchy was illegally overthrown by the US Navy and some sugar planters.

If we still had a Monarchy, you would call me a Loyalist...

[Lurks Often]

21. This will lead to shall issue in Hawaii

unless the ruling is appealed and struck down and that ruling is upheld by SCOTUS which is unlikely.

Rights should not be dependent on the whims of single individual or how much one has contributed to his re-election campaign.

[billh58]

22. I can guarantee you that

the Hawaii Democratic-led State Legislature will appeal this ruling, and write innovative laws to continue to curtail the practice of CCW. Police Chiefs in Hawaii are not elected, but appointed by the various county mayors, so your "campaign contribution" smear is misdirected.

[Lurks Often]

24. Which will lead to additional lawsuits paid for by the taxpayers

which will probably result in the NRA & SAF getting checks, much like what has happened in Chicago.

My comment regarding campaign contributions being a factor in getting a CCW was aimed at the Sheriff's departments of CA, not HI.

http://www.laweekly.com/2013-02-14/news/sheriff-lee-baca-concealed-weapons-permit/

[billh58]

26. We live in interesting

times, and fate has a way of upsetting expected outcomes...

[Lurks Often]

28. Then you might want to prepare yourself to be disappointed

because the overall trend in court cases and legislation in recent years has favored the gun owner and the expansion of shall issue CCW.

[billh58]

31. As hack89 pointed out below,

even in a "shall issue" environment, CCW can still be regulated so I'm not too awfully worried about Hawaii's future. Although it is being watered down by Mainland influences, the Aloha Spirit remains strong in Hawaii Nei.

[secondvariety]

11. If someone feels compelled

to carry a firearm, I think it should be mandatory it be non-concealed. That way me and my loved ones will know which jerkwads to avoid.

[Token Republican]

16. Essentially

/token mode = off

it says that there must be a uniform system for people to carry outside of the home, and that the current discretionary system was unacceptable. Since the right to bear arms is a right, it should not be dependent on the whim of some government agency, nor should vary based on which county you live in.

It sent the case back to the lower court to compel it to formulate this system. The system could be open or concealed or some combination, but there must be a system with a set of standards that are not arbitrary. Nothing more and nothing less.

/token mode = on

Whether or not the right to carry should be a right is another subject, which I'm not going to go into on this forum. But that's a separate issue than what the court ruled in this case.

[awoke_in_2003]

34. I have never felt the need...

to carry a gun in public, even when I worked in one of the roughest areas in Cleveland (Lee and Harvard). How do people live with so much fear?

[Le Taz Hot]

40. How do people live with so much fear?

How do you think? Moar gunz!

[hack89]

39. Concealed-weapon permit applications flood O.C. Sheriff's Department

People are applying for concealed-weapon permits in droves in Orange County, after a federal court ruled Californians don’t have to justify their need for the permit.

In less than two weeks, the Orange County Sheriff’s Department has received more than 500 applications for concealed-weapon permits – about the same number of applications received in all of 2013.

“They’ve been absolutely inundated,” said Lt. Jeff Hallock about the personnel assigned to process the applications.

The deluge of applications came after a Feb. 13 federal appeals court ruling that said applicants wanting a concealed-weapon permit in California no longer have to justify their need for one.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/applications-603207-sheriff-concealed.html