5 Things to Know About Concealed Guns in SD

[SecularMotion]

A panel of federal judges has sent San Diego County packing. Hundreds of residents have applied to be able to carry handguns in their jackets, pockets and purses in the wake of February’s ruling that nixes strict local policies on concealed weapons permits.

But while Sheriff Bill Gore says he won’t appeal the ruling, the battle over concealed weapons in the county isn’t over.

The state attorney general is appealing the 77-page ruling, declaring that sheriffs should be able to protect public safety by judging who can get a permit. And the San Diego County sheriff’s office itself hasn’t accepted the ruling as binding: Its strict policy remains in place for now. Meanwhile, a debate’s brewing about whether it might be better to forbid concealed carry and just let gun owners walk around with their weapons in plain sight.

Here’s five things to know about concealed guns in San Diego.

http://voiceofsandiego.org/2014/03/07/5-things-to-know-about-concealed-guns-in-sd/

[Jenoch]

1. I am unaware of the many problems with concealed guns in South Dakota.

When I was a teen the joke used to be how easy it was to escape from the South Dakota State Penitenentiary. I rememember when an inmate won a radio prize of a week at a lake resort.

[Duckhunter935]

3. I think it is

San Diego, and I am glad they took away the ability of the sheriff to deny unless the requester paid for it in some way. If they have a legitimate issue, yes deny it. If no issue that disqualifies a permit he must now issue.

[Eleanors38]

5. But you can't hunt ducks with handguns in South Dakota. #6, I believe.

[Jenoch]

2. I did not knowhow difficult things were in South Dakota.

When I was a teen the joke used to be how easy it was to escape from the South Dakota State Penitenentiary. I rememember when an inmate won a radio prize of a week at a lake resort.

[ileus]

4. One small victory for the people....thanks for sharing.

Anytime our fellow citizens throw off the yoke of the 1%, even if it's just a baby step it's news to be celebrated.

[S_B_Jackson]

6. ROTFL....

Last edited Sun Mar 9, 2014, 10:44 AM - Edit history (1)

NOW you want to discuss Peruta?

Have you actually read the decision - not analysis of the decision by the normal gun control mavens, but actually read the decision yourself? Relying heavily upon the court's decision in Heller, and explaining in excruciating detail why exactly it is that the state of California's decision, cheered by many of you on the authoritarian side of the spectrum, to ban open carry of unloaded firearms made SD county's decision to effectively also ban concealed carry on the premise that "self-defense" is not a good enough reason was no bueno.

There is a huge problem with vast differences in licensure standards from county to county within the same state - like a 14th Amendment Equal Protection of the Laws level problem with a licensing scheme which is open only to political allies of the licencing officer, the wealthy, and celebrities. Or as the decision notes:

To be clear, we are not holding that the Second Amendment requires the states to permit concealed carry. But the Second Amendment does require that the states permit some form of carry for self-defense outside the home. Historically, the preferred form of carry has depended upon social convention: concealed carry was frowned upon because it was seen as “evil practice” that endangered “the safety of the people” and “public morals” by “exert[ing] an unhappy influence upon the moral feelings of the wearer[
and] making him less regardful of the personal security of others.” Reid, 1 Ala. at 616–17. States thus often passed laws banning concealed carry and state courts often allowed prohibitions on concealed carry so long as open carry was still permitted. Id.; see also Nunn, 1 Ga. at 251 (“[S]o far as the act of 1837 seeks to suppress the practice of carrying certain weapons secretly, th[en] it is valid. . . . But [to the extent it] contains a prohibition against bearing arms openly, is in conflict with the Constitution, and void.”).

California, through its legislative scheme, has taken a different course than most nineteenth-century state legislatures, expressing a preference for concealed rather than open carry. 18 See Cal. Penal Code § 26350 (prohibiting open carry of an unloaded firearm); see also id. §§ 26150, 26155 (establishing a licensing procedure only for concealed carry). And it has the power to do so: as the historical sources have repeatedly noted, the state has a right to prescribe a particular manner of carry, provided that it does not “cut[] off the
exercise of the right of the citizen altogether to bear arms, or,
under the color of prescribing the mode, render[] the right itself useless.” Nunn, 1 Ga. at 243 (emphasis omitted). California’s favoring concealed carry over open carry does not offend the Constitution, so long as it allows one of the two.

To put it simply, concealed carry per se does not fall outside the scope of the right to bear arms; but insistence upon a particular mode of carry does. As we have explained previously, this is not the latter type of case. Peruta seeks a concealed carry permit because that is the only type of permit available in the state. As the California legislature has limited its permitting scheme to concealed carry—and has
thus expressed a preference for that manner of armsbearing— a narrow challenge to the San Diego County regulations on concealed carry, rather than a broad challenge to the state-wide ban on open carry, is permissible.19

For these reasons, Heller’s favorable mention of concealed-carry restrictions is not the silver bullet the County had hoped it was, at least not in this case.

And Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain's opinion really gets going on page 58. His reasoning eviscerates the decisions of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Circuits as lazy, shoddy legal worksmanship - incorrect on the law, incorrect in their citations of precedent, an worst of all - in deliberate contravention of the USSC's logic as laid out in both Heller and McDonald. In other words, Scannlain decided to pick a fight and he used language guaranteed to draw a rise out of the USSC if the case were appealed....

The smart move was Sheriff William Gore and San Diego County Counsel Thomas Montgomery's decision not to appeal. But Kamala Harris has decided, like Custer riding into to Little Bighorn, to charge in despite the advise of her legal scouts. There's little to be gained and pushing the issue simply guarantees that the USSC, as currently constituted, will wade into the issue to sort out the split between the 2nd, 3rd, 4th Circuits and the recent decisions of the 7th and 9th Circuits. Do you really think they're going to overrule themselves?

[Token Republican]

7. In other words

Reasonable gun control laws won't be challenged.

Draconian gun control laws get challenged and result in greater rights for everyone.

There is a wonderful sense of irony that the laws passed by people who are clueless have a long term effect of expanding gun rights.

That realty seems to be lost on those who refuse to discuss the actual issues and instead rely on hyperbole and doublespeak.

[hack89]

8. May issue is dead due to Heller - it is much bigger than Peruta

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. 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.”

So both the 7th and 9th Circuits as well as the Illinois Supreme Court have interpreted Heller as being much more far reaching than just regulating guns in the home. They rightfully conclude that the Heller ruling that self defense as a right cannot logically be restricted to just the home.

[pablo_marmol]

9. Going after/banning unloaded open carry backfired in a HUGE way.

In their decision, the court commented that the banning of open carry was paramount in their decision to liberalize CCW, as California had essentially violated Heller in doing so.

A lot of folks (including yours truly) saw this coming - and I believe that there is little doubt that the NRA saw an opening once unloaded open carry was banned. The activists who acted up with open carry deserve a lot more credit than they've received for this win.