Judge affirms San Diego County gun permit system

[struggle4progress]

The Associated Press
Posted: 12/13/2010 07:14:04 PM PST
Updated: 12/13/2010 08:48:20 PM PST

SAN DIEGO—San Diego County's system of issuing permits for carrying concealed weapons does not violate gun owners' constitutional rights, despite recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions protecting the right to keep guns at home, a judge has ruled ...

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_16850979?nclick_check=1

[Hoyt]

1. Kudos to Judge Gonzalez and the county for standing up to the guns in public lobby.

Hope they start a defense fund for the inevitable rush to overturn the ruling stating other recent court rulings and the 2nd Amendment do not grant a right to carry a loaded concealed weapon in public.

I really like the part about the county's permitting process requires applicants who want to carry concealed weapons have to prove they are more likely than the general public to be placed in harms way. If the posts around here are any indication, I gotta read some of crud folks try in proving that.

[X_Digger]

2. You do know they can carry openly, right?

Perhaps you should do more research.

[Hoyt]

3. Where's the guy with dual shoulder holsters?

There's always one of them around "looking silly," as my retired policeman father-in-law used to say about open toters.

Besides, I think it is only UNLOADED open carry, and that may have been outlawed recently. Don't really care to look it up because I won't be carrying in public openly, or concealed. Not a smart, proper, or necessary thing to do, in my opinion of course.

[safeinOhio]

4. You are right

the big decrease in violent crime makes it less of a problem. Most victims of gun crimes are criminals themselves like gang members and dopers. Even home invasions can be reduced greatly with cheap home security measures.

[Glassunion]

5. I've asked the same question.

Folks keep talking about some jerk with a dual holster at a Red Lobster(or where ever), but we never can seem to find pictures.

I think folks just watch too much TV.

[Hoyt]

6. Actually, I saw a guy walk into a family restaurant outside Birmingham Alabama with duals.

My feeble father-in-law who did not feel the need to carry after he retired from the police force (with 23 years, plus 25 from the Air Force) called him a "silly fool" as he walked by. We cracked up. The old guy was right too, and more folks should speak up because we don't need to condone/endorse people walking around with guns in our society.

[armueller2001]

7. Yeah, what an idiot

Taking personal responsibility for the security of himself and his family... pffff

[friendly_iconoclast]

8. You were right to say something. That fellow was way out of line.

The crust of some people- arming themselves without seeking your prior approval. What is this country coming to?

[Hoyt]

9. Sounds like duals and one strapped to your leg is de rigueur for you two.

Or maybe just a fantasy.

[Katya Mullethov]

15. It's called a brace of pistols

I wear one on occasion but they are small .

[friendly_iconoclast]

16. Not really- I don't own a gun. And if I did, I probably would carry concealed.

But then again, I don't regard my opinion on the matter as something to be handed down from Mount Sinai.


So if someone wishes to carry their guns in a rig that looks like a prop from a third-rate SyFy movie, it's their business- not

mine. Or anyone elses' (if done where legal).

[Euromutt]

19. "Or maybe just a fantasy." Yes; yours.

Frankly, given the way you continuously pretend to speak with authority on a subject about which you display rampant ignorance at every turn, I'm not inclined to take your word for anything.

[PavePusher]

10. "Don't really care to look it up because..."

...you have no interest in facts or empirical evidence that would demonstrate your world-view to be incongruent with reality.

What... Evah...

[X_Digger]

11. No dearie, there was a push to outlaw it, but it failed. n/t

[Hoyt]

13. Somehow, I don't think you guys would be happy having to carry UNloaded.

I mean when that mugger behind every tree jumps out, you ain't gonna have time to load.

[X_Digger]

14. Since I don't live in CA, not my problem.

But you know, you can have a loaded magazine right beside the gun. *gasp*

Realistically, those who open carry in CA typically carry a loaded magazine on the other side.

As one hand draws the weapon, the other draws the magazine. Hands meet, mag goes in, slide is racked.

You've added 0.8 - 1.5 seconds, with practice.

[friendly_iconoclast]

17. Then again, it's not really his problem either, is it?

And as the California legislature rejected a bill to outlaw all open carry there, all those Cali open-carriers will just have

to suffer his disapproval of their actions. I'm sure this will cause them no end of angst...

[Euromutt]

20. There's a very simple criterium

If you can afford to give a generous donation to the sheriff's re-election fund, you are more likely than the general public to be placed in harm's way. It probably doesn't hurt to be white as well.

[PavePusher]

12. I wonder if the good Judge can articulate...

just how denial of a Civil Right is effective in "promoting public safety and reducing the rate of gun crime". Id like to hear that one. I bet she tells great fish tales too.

She also claimed that denial of a Civil Right is not an infringment of that right. You really can't make that shit up....

[friendly_iconoclast]

18. In her mind, I'm sure it isn't an infringement. Royalists are usually like that.

After all, the 'good' (IOW, rich and/or well-connected) people can get CCW permits, so no problem, amirite?

I can't wait to see what the US Court of Appeals has to say about it.

[jazzhound]

22. I believe that you're referring to this portion, PP:

"In this case, Defendant has an important and substantial interest in public safety and in reducing the rate of gun use in crime. In particular, the government has an important interest in reducing the number of concealed weapons in public in order to reduce the risks to other members of the public who use the streets and go to public accommodations. See Zimring Decl. The government also has an important interest in reducing the number of concealed handguns in public because of their disproportionate involvement in life-threatening crimes of violence, particularly in streets and other public places. Id. Defendant’s policy relates reasonably to those interests.

Requiring documentation enables Defendant to effectively differentiate between individuals who have a bona fide need to carry a concealed handgun for self-defense and individuals who do not.

The Court acknowledges Plaintiffs’ argument that many violent gun crimes, even a majority, are committed by people who cannot legally have guns, and the ongoing dispute over the effectiveness of concealed weapons laws. See Moody Decl. But under intermediate scrutiny, Defendant’s policy need not be perfect, only reasonably related to a “significant,” “substantial,” or “important” governmental interest. Marzzarrella, 614 F.3d at 98. Defendant’s policy satisfies that standard."

(emphasis added)

The fact that she quotes Zimring says it all, really.

I was in the courtroom for the arguments. At one point in the proceedings the judge asked Peruta's (lead) attorney how many U.S. states are "shall issue" states w/regard to concealed carry. It's pretty amazing that she could make the above statement with full knowledge of the number of states that allow for concealed carry. What is she postulating regarding "public safety"? That citizens of California have inferior wiring relative to citizens from other states where concealed carry has represented no problem?

Time will tell if this moves to higher courts.

[PavePusher]

23. Thanks for posting that, I had actually missed that part.

She might actually have had a valid point, if she had specified that she was talking about illegally concealed firearms. The number of legal concealers involved in crimes, as we know, is almost statistically insignificant and has no bearing on the issue she raised.

[jazzhound]

21. Your celebration may be premature.

There is another shoe to drop, as there are similar lawsuits pending in CA.

And you are aware that you helped to vote in a Dem governor who is sympathetic to gun rights, aren't you?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x261774

[jazzhound]

24. Correction: Obviously folks from NC (like our thread

starter) didn't have a hand in electing Jerry Brown.

The fact remains, however, that many Californians who voted for that damned progressive Brown were 100% clueless as to how genuinely progressive he likely is in his support of the RKBA.

I say likely because he could very well pull a politically motivated about-face at some time in the future. Hard to trust those damned liberals, y'know? ;-)