Second Amendment Rights Affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals…WHAT?

Remember Thursday, February 13, 2014. It was a very bad day for folks like San Diego County Sheriff William D. Gore, Senator Darrell Steinberg, former Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, Governor Jerry Brown and those lovers of the constitution…the Brady Campaign.

Instead of trying to be glib and pithy (I will do that later…) let me just cut to the chase and share with you the concluding paragraphs from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion in the case of Peruta v. San Diego:

We are well aware that, in the judgment of many governments, the safest sort of firearm-carrying regime is one which restricts the privilege to law enforcement with only narrow exceptions. Nonetheless, “the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. . . . Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court [or ours] to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.” Id. at 636. Nor may we relegate the bearing of arms to a “second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees that we have held to be incorporated into the Due Process Clause.” McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3044.

The district court erred in denying the applicant’s motion for summary judgment on the Second Amendment claim because San Diego County’s “good cause” permitting requirement impermissibly infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense.


Reader’s Digest version, a law-abiding citizen cannot be denied a Carry Concealed Weapon (CCW) Permit because the citizen’s reason showing “good cause” isn’t good enough.  The court is saying a desire for personal protection IS good enough.  This will remove the arbitrary nature in which many Chiefs and Sheriffs issue CCWs.

Now specifically, it is important to give credit where credit is due. Gun Owners of California wants to thank San Diego Sheriff William D. Gore for his refusal to change his unconstitutional system for the issuance of CCW’s.  Had he relented and instituted a constitutionally friendly approach to issuing CCW’s then this ruling may never had occurred and every law-abiding citizen who resides in Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Washington, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands would not have been informed by the courts that the 2nd Amendment protects their right to “bear arms” outside their home (either open or concealed of both).  Yes, we know that this court’s ruling was issued by a three judge panel including Justices O’Scannlain, Thomas and Callahan.  And yeah we know that is was a 2 to 1 decision where Justice Thomas dissented concluding that:

A careful examination of the narrow questions before us can only lead to the

conclusion that San Diego County’s “good cause” policy falls squarely within the

Supreme Court’s definition of “presumptively lawful regulatory measures.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 626, 627 n.26, 636. There is no need to reach any other issue

presented in the case. In dealing a needless, sweeping judicial blow to the public

safety discretion invested in local law enforcement officers and to California’s

carefully constructed firearm regulatory scheme, the majority opinion conflicts

with Supreme Court authority, the decisions of our sister circuits, and our own

circuit precedent…

Interpretation – You can’t do that, it screws up California’s complicated and confusing gun control laws and prevents Chiefs and Sheriffs from being arbitrary and capricious in the manner in which they grant CCW’s.

To Senator Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento), your admitted hate of the 2nd Amendment and what it means, as opposed to what you WISH it meant (remember we heard you in committee saying “I wish I could change the 2nd Amendment so that it would only allow certain guns…”), fuels the anti-gun fervor in the legislature encouraging your Democrat members to overreach and blindly fight for more gun control.  We hope your protégé’ Senator Kevin de Leon (D-Los Angeles), who has also felt the sting of defeat in the courts regarding his unconstitutional efforts for more gun control, will take heed when he is again informed that his proposals will end up in the court room shredder.  (It’s such a waste of taxpayer’s hard-earned dollars to be continuously spent to defend loosing battles in the courts.)

To former Assemblyman Anthony Portantino (D-Pasadena)…who you ask?  Remember him?  He was the guy who sponsored AB 144 in 2011 to ban open carry of handguns and AB 1527 in 2012 to ban open carry of long guns.  He was the one who ignored warnings that his bills, if signed into law, would end up being the mechanism that would force even our left leaning courts to make California a, for all intents and purposes, “Shall Issue” state on CCWs.  Heck, I was even quoted in the L.A Times September 28, 2012 making that prediction:

Sam Paredes, executive director of the advocacy group Gun Owners of California, said the ban could lead, paradoxically, to more carrying of handguns. Courts, he reasoned, could now force the state’s police to distribute more concealed-weapon permits to allow citizens to exercise their rights.

“This situation will be a catalyst to unite all of the gun community in lawsuits,” Paredes said.”The probable outcome is you will have far more people carrying concealed loaded guns as opposed to openly carrying unloaded guns.”


To Governor Jerry Brown, who as candidate Jerry Brown promised fidelity to hunters and shooters saying he was good on guns, and who said he listened to law enforcement when he signing the bans on open carry…maybe you should start listening to the United States Constitution first…

To the Brady Campaign, what will you come up with next…oh yeah ban 3D printed guns…