Contra Costa County Sheriff Issues Statement After Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down California’s Concealed Weapon Law

February 13, 2014 21:58 pm · 97 comments

court

The 9th circuit court of appeals on Thursday struck down California’s concealed weapons rules, saying they violate the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

The court, in response to a lawsuit filed in San Diego, said the state was wrong to require applicants to show good cause and moral character to receive a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

“Our conclusion that the right to bear arms includes the right to carry an operable firearm outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense is perhaps unsurprising – other circuits faced with this question have expressly held, or at the very least have assumed, that this is so,” the court said.

Currently, it is the decision of each county to issue concealed carry permits, and state rules require applicants to show good cause and moral character in order to be issued a permit.

“I was made aware of the ruling several hours ago. I have asked County Counsel to advise on the impact of the decision. I expect some clarification in the coming days”, Contra Costa County Sheriff David Livingston told Claycord.com.

“I was informed that San Diego County intends to appeal the ruling. If that occurs a final decision could be months or even years away. In the meantime, the Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff will issue CCW permits consistent with our policies, unless County Counsel advises an immediate change is required. We should know more information in the coming days and weeks”, Livingston said.

To read the entire decision by the court, please click ON THIS LINK.

{ 97 comments }

1 Jose February 13, 2014 at 10:03 PM

To all of you who complained about open carry until it was banned, thank you! This would never have been possible without your help.

2 YESSSSS February 13, 2014 at 10:06 PM

Yay for upholding the constitution! Yay for law abiding citizens!

3 brian February 13, 2014 at 10:21 PM

Once again law abidding citizens of contra costa county will be able to attain a government issued license that grants them a right prtected by our constitution.

4 Bill February 13, 2014 at 10:22 PM

I think I’ll wait for more advisement from my legal council before I obey the new California driving laws I don’t like… Bycycle passing distance restrictions, naw, I’m sure it will be appealed eventually.. Nice leadership by example Sheriff Livingston!

5 YESSSSS February 13, 2014 at 10:31 PM

@Bill Great Point!

6 Laura Zah February 13, 2014 at 10:48 PM

I’m surprised. I thought Mr. Obama made it clear that abiding by the US Constitution was optional.

Glad the court actually came to the obviously correct decision. Still, I will not celebrate this until it is clear that California has become a “right to carry state” and I’m not holding my breath.

7 Teacher Wannabe February 13, 2014 at 11:14 PM

So…apparently anyone, for any old reason with no morals what so ever can have a gun, according to the federal givernment. Great, just what we need.

8 Geezer Butler February 13, 2014 at 11:17 PM

Good one Bill!

9 Mike February 13, 2014 at 11:17 PM

Solid step back towards freedom! Thank you Ed Peruta and your legal team for fighting for every Californian’s right to self defense.

10 Martinez Country Wife February 13, 2014 at 11:21 PM

“In the meantime, the Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff will issue CCW permits consistent with our policies…”
So, does that mean that Contra Costa County Sheriff will continue to deny applications, or does that actually mean that they SHALL be issuing permits now?

11 Jmouse February 13, 2014 at 11:38 PM

@Bill ha ha good one.

@Teacher Wannabe there are rules listed, now as a responsible citizen we can carry a concealed weapon with a permit. I not sure if you know this but criminals tend not to follow the law anyways,If you would like we could be like Arizona and have a bill that will nullify any Federal gun laws.

12 Sal February 14, 2014 at 12:05 AM

Did any of you see the video of the Oakland Sideshows? They did not need any permits to recklessly shoot anytime they wanted. But wait the law enforcement just drove away for which might as well be a permit. Legal gun owners being able to carry can provide that safety or at least a fair chance to survive. Stop being a victim! Protect yourself. The police have no I repeat no legal obligation to protect you. And in Oakland there are not even obligated to uphold the law. Sorry, I am a supporter of any law enforcement agency but if you can not create the safety needed things need to change.

13 ManMtn February 14, 2014 at 12:15 AM

I tend to prefer open carry to concealed carry, but we’ll see how this plays out as the process continues. And don’t be too hard on the Sheriff. It isn’t clear how striking down San Diego’s law affects the rest of the state and he is looking for clarification. I’d rather have a Sheriff that follows the law and not one that just decides on his own. The Sheriff is not there to lead, he is there to enforce laws. If the rules have changed, he should follow them. Period. But like he indicated, this is just the beginning. I want to be able to carry my gun for protection, but I want others to feel safe when I do. We gotta find the right balance.

14 Scoots February 14, 2014 at 12:15 AM

The way I read it is that the sheriff will continue to deny us our 2nd Amendment rights until he is actually forced to comply with the US Constitution and the 9th District Court’s ruling.

15 Lanny February 14, 2014 at 12:49 AM

Obama is coming for our guns!….oh wait. I guess not.

Never mind.

16 Mr. Moses February 14, 2014 at 1:08 AM

As a transplant, I’ve always wondered how it was legal for California to be so restrictive on CC. Unless you were “somebody” (which itself points to its unconstitutionality), you really had no hope of getting one.

Living in the Bay area and working from time to time in places like Oakland or Richmond, I’ve always wondered why you aren’t issued a weapon when you go in and out of the borders of those locations. Recently in Richmond I had to scare a ghetto savage silly after he got out of his car to come at me for honking at him for nearly causing an accident. I’m scary like that so I can make it work with my words, but if I was a nice pretty little woman I would have been scared for my life.

Not to mention, unless you are wealthy, there really is no police force protecting you. They are either all emaciated (Oakland) or think that they are the new age “knights,” just another noble class above the peasants…lol. I prefer in this context to simply take care of myself.

17 NRA Supporter February 14, 2014 at 1:20 AM

Yep, to all of you that cried and complained about Open-Carry, well you finally actually gave us the chance to get what we wanted. CCW Permits for self-defense. Thank you! It was just a matter of time. To bad it had to open now, should have been this way YEARS ago in California.

18 H February 14, 2014 at 2:07 AM

Yeah, it sounds like the sheriff’s response to this decision is to stick his fingers in his ears and deny CCW permits until a higher authority forces him to issue them.

19 Safety Second February 14, 2014 at 2:22 AM

The Sheriff, like all LE, enjoy the privelege to carry concealed for decades after they retire. As usual, It’s them vs us. Someday us millions who carry concealed, under our Constitutional Right (and not under the authority of a municple hack), will “come out of the shadows.”

20 Sinn Feiner February 14, 2014 at 2:59 AM

This is still a long ways off with the appeal process. David Livingston had a “No Issue Policy” when he was Chief of Police in Concord and he has continued with that policy here in Contra Costa County. He will hold off issuing ccw’s until the very last minute.

It will be nice when law abiding citizens who have gone through the required training can start carrying when they feel they need to. Maybe this will make criminals think twice before robbing someone out on the streets.

21 Just Another Concord Resident February 14, 2014 at 4:51 AM

Sorry, but Mr. Livingston is anti carry and will find ways.. legal of course to continue to deny our rights no matter what the law states. As a life long bureaucrat, he is opposed to our freedoms and is very good at hiding behind legal counsel. As usual, only the well connected politically will ever receive a CCW in this county.

22 jlevine February 14, 2014 at 5:18 AM

A million plus CCC residents, 19 cities, more shootings in the east and west part of county then I can count. I do NOT recall ONE person with a CCWP as a suspect.

23 rkt88 February 14, 2014 at 5:19 AM

@MCW – I belive that is what he is saying, CoCoCoSD will continue to generally not issue based on good cause until this reaches a final outcome or their legal says otherwise.

Thanks Mr. Mayor or whomever for getting the statement for the very important local effect of the ruling.

24 law abiding citizen February 14, 2014 at 5:34 AM

Sheriff still doesnt want to obey the law? can he be recalled?

25 Killjoy February 14, 2014 at 5:42 AM

@Scoots and ManMtn
The way I read it also, is that the Sheriff is going to continue to deny us the right until ordered otherwise, to follow the law.

26 Teacher Wannabe February 14, 2014 at 5:50 AM

@Jmouse, so when you walk up to me CCW, I dont know for sure if its loaded or not . I’d rather not be faced with a gun at all. That I won’t have to try to figure it out. And don’t try to defend your right. Hunting , ok, but handguns are for one purpose only, to kill another person. I’ve not needed guns near me for 55 years, so having you there to “protect” me or yourself is not necessary.

27 BusBoy February 14, 2014 at 5:58 AM

@ManMtn

What if I “Feel” that I dont like what you say? Therefor you should shut up?

It hurts my “Feelings” that you dont allow police to stop by anytime and demand a search of your residence. Might as well just leave the door open.

I dont feel the need to let (insert any racial bias here) use the front of the bus. the public doesnt “feel” comfortable when they do that… Back of the bus!!

Your type of attitude is what has made California what it is today.

In case you missed it the court REVERSED AND REMANDED the lower courts decision. They have so closely modeled the decision after the way SCOTUS did with the Heller case its kind of funny… Never thought I’d see the 9th do something like this in my lifetime.

Bill @4 Made the PERFECT analogy there. You think that that would fly with ANY LEO?? Seriously… USE and DEFEND your rights.

28 BAB February 14, 2014 at 5:58 AM

Gotta love the libs. Gay marriage ruling, start marring like yesterday, 2nd amendment rights. Oh we have to wait for the appeal it may take years! Just choose what laws you want to obey. Good to see it’s business as usual. And all this time, I thought California would lead the nation.

29 Noflow February 14, 2014 at 5:59 AM

@MM #13,

But that is exactly the point, each jurisdiction has been following their own rules, the constitutionally protected law has not been applied equally….

How do you feel about Open Carry or “Gay Marriage” now?

30 Noflow February 14, 2014 at 5:59 AM

Maybe soon we will all have the same right to protect ourselves that “Pistol Packing” Don Peralta and “Special Deputy” Diane Feinstein have been exercising for years.

31 Nuttsie the Nutter February 14, 2014 at 6:08 AM

Well put ManMtn.

For those of you who are boo-hooing being denied your second amendment “rights”, remember that the Constitution is a legal document subject to legal interpretation by the courts. Right now there is a serious legal question as to what the right to “bear” arms means. And this is not a liberal or conservative issue. It is a legal issue that needs to be solved.

32 Killjoy February 14, 2014 at 6:09 AM

I forgot to add, While continuing to hand them out to his friends and others who donate large sums of money to his causes, otherwise known as “The Sheriff’s Posse”.

33 BusBoy February 14, 2014 at 6:12 AM

Mr Mayor,

To be fair the title of your post was a little broad… What the court struck down was that the “Good Cause” portion of the states concealed weapons law where a Sheriff can use his “Discretion” and decide if your life threatening situation is worthy or not and at least in COCO it was a pretty high standard.

Now.. or should I say WHEN the Sheriff begins to follow the law. He wont have the ability to use “Good Cause” as a reason for denial a simple “For Self Defense” is all that is needed and thats your “Good Cause”

ALL other procedures and stipulations are currently still in force. So the whole “Law” wasnt struck down… just a piece. Next up though and Im guessing it will come pretty quickly is the next case the 9th has that is deciding on the “Good Moral Character” which again some Sheriffs used a tad too liberally… Speeding ticket? No LTC! Jaywalking? No LTC supposedly that means you’re a miscreant for basically any reason.

That decision will be out soon and then most of the liberal grey matter here in the great state of California will spontaneously explode and I have a big bag of popcord waiting for that day!! ;-) take care!

34 anon February 14, 2014 at 6:42 AM

Finally! I have had popcorn thrown in my face too many times at the movie theater and haven’t been able to respond. I will feel much safer knowing that myself and my fellow militia men can be armed while watching The Lego Movie.

35 Lawyerly February 14, 2014 at 6:45 AM

It’s amazing how many constitutional scholars there are when a legal ruling is handed down. ManMtn appears to be the only one who understands the sheriff’s legal position as the fact that it is an appropriate response to the federal court’s ruling.

36 Rollo Tomasi February 14, 2014 at 6:49 AM

@ManMtn:

This ruling applies to California, not just San Diego. It effectively changes California from a “may issue” to a “shall issue” state. The fact that one is required to show good cause to carry concealed for personal safety was declared unconstitutional.

The fact that this comes from the notoriously liberal 9th Circuit Court is the most surprising fact.

37 Anonymous February 14, 2014 at 6:51 AM

Teacher should read the decision before he starts I’n. The court made it clear that bad guys can’t have guns etc. Meantime I bought Ruger stock and plan to get rich.

If I were a crook mugging people in parking lots this decision would scare me to death.

If I were a Sherrif issuing permits to my buddies and were told the common rabble were entitled to permits ,I would be upset. Try to slow things down.

38 Futurama February 14, 2014 at 7:13 AM

Better to have a well armed law abiding populace than one where only villains are armed.

39 The Mamba February 14, 2014 at 7:20 AM

Kind of a shocking decision considering it came from a California court. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

40 Jose February 14, 2014 at 7:26 AM

@Teacher Wannabe #26,

If someone walks up to you CCW, you have no idea. You don’t have to try to figure out anything.

I guarantee you would be appalled at the number of guns you’ve passed within a few feet of, most carried by law breakers, and never even knew. And not one of them ever jumped out and shot you as you walked past.

The anti-CCW crowd can speculate all day about the bloodbath that will result from allowing honest people to carry guns. But the rest of us can show precedent in the 80% of the country that already allows it and doesn’t have those problems.

41 The New Rhodesian February 14, 2014 at 7:36 AM

Finally! We can exercise our inalienable right to self defense. Now I say let’s recall this corrupt sheriff who made it clear he does not care about the rights of the people!

42 rkt88 February 14, 2014 at 7:54 AM

lol @Teacher Wannabe – if they are CCW, you won’t know that they are carrying, so don’t sweat it.

43 Daniel Shays February 14, 2014 at 7:57 AM

I thought it was easy to get a CCW in Contra Costa County. Join the Sheriff’s Posse and or donate heavily to his re-election campaign.

44 What if February 14, 2014 at 8:29 AM

the first amendment was as restrictive as the second? Apples and oranges? Not really, both are amendments to the constitution. Don’t like the amendment? Repeal it! Until then, its the law of the land, not an option to abide by one law and not another.

But of course some people are superior to others, kind of like royalty over subjects. Trouble with that is the Kings head can end up in basket just like anyone elses can. The will of the people will prevail.

45 Lloyd February 14, 2014 at 8:33 AM

Thank god. with all the bad media about guns, its good to know that someone in our government is standing up for our rights. guns dont kill people! Children of bad parents kill people!

46 Connie Dobbs February 14, 2014 at 8:50 AM

#26 should wear a white ribbon, indicating she’s unarmed.

47 zeroc00l February 14, 2014 at 9:04 AM

finally the right that brought us this country is being upheld in good old CA. I had a concealed weapons permit in Indiana and it was 30 a year or 100 for life. never heard of someone there abusing it. when we were at the bar everyone had one, you wouldn’t know who was a cop or citizen so everyone respected each other a lot more. awe the good old days.

48 Shelly February 14, 2014 at 9:12 AM

Doesn’t matter, I’m still packin’! Target of crime once, shame on you, crime target twice, SHAME ON ME!

49 Rob February 14, 2014 at 9:31 AM

I bet that judge still won’t allow people to carry their 2nd Amendment protected guns into his court room to watch him work…

50 Rob February 14, 2014 at 9:32 AM

Connie Dobbs February 14, 2014 at 8:50 AM
#26 should wear a white ribbon, indicating she’s unarmed.

====

Agreed that way when someone wants to rob someone if they aren’t wearing a white ribbon the bad guy knows to shoot first before their victim can pull their gun out.

51 Dill Hole February 14, 2014 at 9:36 AM

Whats the big deal? All the people who lack moral scruples already have guns and don’t care about laws. Hooray for laws!

52 Look Sherrif Livingston February 14, 2014 at 9:41 AM

You may not like it, but the court decided the issue. Saying you won’t obey the decision because it is being appealed is ridiculous. The dust bin of history is littered with Sheriffs who only followed court orders when they felt like it.

Any Sheriff who disobeys a Federal Court order is risking contempt proceedings and removal from office.

You sound like George Wallace or Orvil Faubus saying “Segregation forever” Federal judges don’t take lightly to being disobeyed. They didn’t in the 60′s and they don’t now.

53 Dill Hole February 14, 2014 at 9:41 AM

RE. 43
I have also heard if you want a permit write a fat check to the Sheriff’s campaign.

54 Right On February 14, 2014 at 10:52 AM

Legistration, Registration, Confiscation, Revolution…

55 Just Another Concord Resident February 14, 2014 at 10:55 AM

Sorry to tell you but even Posse members can’t necessarily get a CCW.. I have my Posse badge (ID card) for the last 10 years or so and couldn’t get one for love or money.

56 From the Sheriff's point of view, February 14, 2014 at 11:04 AM

waiting for the decision of the appeal is probably a good idea. Should the appeal court overturn the ruling, and the Sheriff had issued permits that would then be illegal, that’s a bigger problem.

Its best to wait until the courts are done with their work. In the meantime, elect pro constitution representatives to every level of government.

57 Connie Dobbs February 14, 2014 at 11:13 AM

#50 You can’t mean to tell me that all of us are safer when no one knows who’s packing.

58 NRA Supporter February 14, 2014 at 11:18 AM

TeacherWannbe…..go back and hide under the rock you crawled out from under. You just keep thinking that it could NEVER happen to you. Well, me and my fellow 2nd Amendment folks never want to take that chance. It’s not about killing someone, just because we can carry a CW. It’s about protection. If someone pulls a gun on me or my family or anyone else out in public we should have the right to defend ourselves. This is why the criminals love CALIF. They know it’s just them and the cops. That’ll thought process will change real soon when they realize that they will have no idea who is and isn’t carry a concealed weapon.

59 skrab February 14, 2014 at 11:43 AM

@ Look Sherriff Livingston

Take it from a lawyer, smartypants, a 9th Circuit decision is not the same thing as a court order.

60 Mike February 14, 2014 at 11:49 AM

Well Connie D, actually not all of us would be safer. Law-abiding citizens would likely be safer but criminals intent on harming those citizens? — they would probably be less safe.

61 Hapyy Valentines Day! February 14, 2014 at 11:55 AM

Arguing over gun ownership is as pointless as arguing politics or religion.

People believe what they want to believe, and rightfully so. Agree to disagree and move on.

62 Daniel Shays February 14, 2014 at 11:58 AM

Michelle #54.
You can’t be that naive.
Monetarily support the sheriff and get a CCW.
Monetarily support the POTUS and get an Ambassadorship.

63 Sacto Rob February 14, 2014 at 12:45 PM

@#14 Scoots: Don’t forget the Sheriff is an elected official. He’s taking the politically safe route by stating he won’t change current policy until County Counsel advises him otherwise. Unless a stay is placed on the new ruling, County Counsel will likely advise the Sheriff to change his policies to comply with the ruling. The Sheriff might not be happy about the decision but also he won’t want to be held responsible by the voters for lawsuits filed by those denied a CCP under the new decision.

@#7 Teacher Wannabe: I sure hope you study our Constitution and learn something about our civil rights before you get put in charge of a classroom.

64 iluvfriedchicken February 14, 2014 at 1:12 PM

@7 Yep. But if morals are your standard for carrying, how do you explain the Concord police?

The Constitution is not a treaties on morals. It’s a political document meant to bring about equality for all under the law. Go read the motto on the front of the U.S. Supreme Court if you don’t believe me.

An armed society is a polite society. Personally, I wish people would arm themselves with rational thought and understanding. However, the second amendment is about guns. That’s OUR right.

65 Trevbo February 14, 2014 at 1:32 PM

This is the greatest thing to happen to California in years. We will finally catch up with the 39 other states that recognize our civil rights under the 2nd amendment. Equal rights for everyone!

66 Idiocracy February 14, 2014 at 1:39 PM

Recall this sheriff! How in the world is this kind of person in control of such an important factor? I think in the paper it said only 152 CCW’s in Co Co County. Not only should this guy be fired but he should serve time for blocking our rights like golem hiding his precious. Get rid of these anti Americans in office.

67 Jose February 14, 2014 at 1:57 PM

@57,
If the Sheriff issued permits now and the ruling were later overturned, that would not cause them to become illegal. He has had the authority to issue permits long before now. What’s illegal, according to this ruling, is making people prove good cause (a virtual impossibility, since it’s up to the Sheriff’s discretion) before issuing a permit to carry.

Regardless of one’s opinions about guns, it’s really no different than having to show good cause before you’re allowed to speak, or practice your religion, or vote, or any of the other rights guaranteed by our Constitution.

68 Always Right February 14, 2014 at 2:01 PM

All you second amendment fans cheering this ruling – remember this: we are only one Supreme Court vote away from the effective elimination of the right to bear arms.

Last vote was 5-4, with four liberal judges stating in their minority opinion the right only applies to organized militias and not individuals.

If the Democrats keep the senate with Obama in the White House or if Hillary gets elected it is game over.

69 iluvfriedchicken February 14, 2014 at 2:23 PM

@69,
What case are you citing?

70 @ Teacher Wannabe February 14, 2014 at 3:07 PM

You are a dolt. Look it up. Then, read a history book and The Constitution. This is about self preservation. Your anecdotal “55 years” argument was made possible by the use of guns in the first place.

Thank a vet, thank our brave forefathers and then you can thank a CCW holder who was willing to take on the huge responsibility and liability of carrying and maybe one day saving your ass from a thug or even worse a tyrannical government. (I wouldn’t save you from the latter.)

This is a step in the right direction, but we ain’t there yet. God help us if we ever let the government disarm us. History has proven time and time again that an un-armed citizenry always leads to tyranny.

If that’s your idea of Utopia, I suggest you look for a different country to live in.

All the best,

Molon Labe

(Greek: μολὼν λαβέ molṑn labé; Ancient Greek: [molɔːn labé]; Modern Greek: [moˈlon laˈve]), lit. “come and take”, is a classical expression of defiance reportedly spoken by King Leonidas I in response to the Persian army’s demand that the Spartans surrender their weapons at the Battle of Thermopylae.

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force: Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.”- Patrick Henry

71 Killjoy February 14, 2014 at 3:13 PM

Let’s look at this from another perspective.
Suppose that the majority of the counties around us, do in fact follow the letter of the law, and let their residents obtain a CCW and carry their protection.
The criminals in these areas will think twice about committing a crime in those areas, but will think “Hey! Let’s mosey on over to Contra Costa County where they don’t allow anyone to have a gun.”
Yes, we will become a target rich environment where all the criminals will go “hunting”.

72 . February 14, 2014 at 3:25 PM

@teacher wannabe 26….

I’ve never needed a fire extinguisher in my 63 years…..but I still have one and check it regularly. And yes, I’ve been carrying concealed for years. Whether I’ve had to use it or not is immaterial. Let’s just say that I might not be around today if it weren’t for the CCW.

@#57…. The CCW permits would not become “illegal”. In the situation you described, the worst case would be that it becomes invalid and you would have to turn it back in.

73 Man Mountain February 14, 2014 at 4:59 PM

First, as far as the law, it hasn’t changed since appeals are forthcoming. That’s generally how the process works. The 9th circuit court is not the last word and as far as every article I read, the prior rules stay in place until appeals finish. Second, WOW, apparently I’m a terrible person for wanting my rights AND being concerned about how others in my community feel. Of course we should always defend our rights and use them, but we are part of a community. It isn’t just about what I want or think is right. I’m not saying we should give up our rights if others don’t like them, but is it so bad to say we can work together to figure this out? What made California great was everybody working together with a sense of community. Many of the problems I see now are caused by those who don’t care about their neighborhoods, or cities, or state. As long as they get what they want, they don’t care. Be it gang members or some corporations, it’s the same problem. One commenter said we have gun rights to defend against a tyrannical government, but wouldn’t defend @TeacherWannabe. That is a problem. We must defend each other even if we don’t like what they say. That’s what Americans do. *gets off the high horse*

74 Always Right February 14, 2014 at 5:03 PM

@70 District of Columbia v. Heller 2008. 5-4 decision.

In the dissenting opinion, justice Stevens indicated the Founders would have made the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment express if that was what was intended; that the “militia” preamble and exact phrase “to keep and bear arms” demands the conclusion that the Second Amendment touches on state militia service only.

Like I said, if the 4 liberal Justices believe the second amendment applies to militias only, we are one of two elections away from liberal Justice 5 and the end of individual gun rights.

You all better get your check books out and support your local and national Republican candidates.

75 typical concord resident February 14, 2014 at 5:39 PM

SO WHEN DO WE GET TO START SHOOTING LIBERALS AND OTHER ANTI-GUN IDIOTS FOR BEING TRAITORS TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA???????? THE DEATH PENALTY FOR THAT IS EVEN SPELLED OUT IN THE CONSTITUTION….

76 Atticus Thraxx February 14, 2014 at 5:54 PM

Until I can openly carry around my lever .45-90, I ain’t whistling a happy tune. Pistols are fine. For women,children and pimps and such.
But then I think about some of my fellow Californians….alot of my fellow Californians, carrying a weapon and it sounds like a terrible,terrible idea.

77 . February 14, 2014 at 6:00 PM

Gun free zones are target rich environments.

78 @ 73 February 14, 2014 at 7:09 PM

Great point !

79 Anon February 14, 2014 at 7:15 PM

Finally criminals will have to wonder, are they packing or not? Sorry hoplophobes, move to the “420″ state with your brothers and sisters.

80 Jeff February 14, 2014 at 7:47 PM

What was shot down was the good cause issue – self defense is a good enough cause for being able to carry. And – this is a major ruling – its not like it happened in district court, it happened in the 9th circuit and will lukely not be taken up by the Supreme Court because of Heller and McDonalf decisions and other states following suit (illinois for one).

The only reason a sheriff can now deny is based on your behavioral and/criminal history. SO – if you are a upstanding and law abiding citizen, then they will be hard pressed to NOT issue you a permit. However – knowing California they will make it extremely expensive – and additional lawsuits will follow until Cali is FORCED to go to a shall issue state.

You can thank us open carriers later for pushing the issue and forcing Cali to make a decision to violate our rights. Glad that I was able to be a part of a large team effort to bring our CONSTITUTIONAL rights back to the people!

Not only that – but where will the brady camp be once its determined that the end result isn’t the “wild west”, but a noticeable reduction in violent crime once more people start packing???? Bye bye karen arntzen and your dramatic emotional bs. Time for the FACTS to smack you in the face. we the people will NOT be denied our rights

81 Jeff February 14, 2014 at 8:06 PM

Also / lets not forget that when ccw shall issue DOES come – it is the responsibility of everyone carrying to understand when, where, how, and why to use it in the event of a life-threatening situation.

Proper use and safety is paramount, as it is with any responsibility.

82 todd February 14, 2014 at 8:28 PM

Don’t count on any permits forthcoming anytime soon unless of course you are wealth enough to buy one…I mean support the reelection of the appropriate politician or sheriff. Additionally our illustrious attorney general doesn’t give a damn about the laws she will just find a way to circumvent the ruling or just outright make all firearms unable to be possessed in California.

83 Blah February 14, 2014 at 8:34 PM

Too bad getting the permit is so expensive……

84 Laura Zah February 14, 2014 at 9:43 PM

My pistol is just part of my health insurance plan. I can use it to keep me healthy if I’m threatened with violence.

85 @jeff February 14, 2014 at 9:44 PM

See post 76.

86 Judge Roy Bean February 14, 2014 at 11:05 PM

Its about time. County needs to get on board now and not take the slow boat to China.

87 caskydiver February 14, 2014 at 11:45 PM

IT IS ABOUT TIME the courts realized CA’s CCW licensing process was unconstitutional. Just about everywhere else in the country is “shall issue” and CA should be no different.

88 Jgor February 15, 2014 at 2:20 AM

While this is welcome news, the problem with permits is it still sets up a registration system. If the law changes, they know who has what.

89 Jeff February 15, 2014 at 8:19 AM

Sheriff, you might not have noticed, but over the last few years, the Inner City Gangbangers have spilled over into our community! And they brought with them that mentality. Violent Crimes are way up, and convictions are down. The local law enforcement agencies are essentially being overwhelmed! If they can’t be there 3 minutes before the incident occurs, we need the ability to deal with it ourselves! Criminals are IDIOTS, but they’re not Stupid! They choose their victims wisely! “High Gain, Low Risk”! If they even suspect that someone in the area is armed, they don’t commit the crime! Having your Holster only half covered is still Concealed Carry, but the Criminals get the idea! Many of US are Seasoned Veterans, and fully versed in the use of Deadly Force! Help US help you, and ourselves in the process. Unless you have a valid concern with a particular individual Issue the permits!

90 Killjoy February 15, 2014 at 9:22 AM

I just saw a story on the news about a food distributor who is selling shark fins, for shark fin soup. It’s currently illegal, but an appeal is pending.
The resturaunt who was selling the soup was fined, and it led to the distributor who was also fined, and any fins on site were confiscated.

So currently there is a ruling that a CCW should be issued, but our illustrious sheriff has decided against the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and is waiting for the results of an additional appeal.
Why can’t they still serve shark fin soup until the results of THAT appeal?
If that ban is repealed, will they refund all the fines that were collected during the ban period? Not likely.

91 @51 February 15, 2014 at 9:29 AM

Yea there open and carry.

92 @ Jeff February 15, 2014 at 10:55 AM

Jeff you want to carry a gun because it’s a constitutional right is OK by me. I don’t understand why you think your life is being threatened to the extend that you have this innate need to carry a gun everywhere you go but I’m sympathetic to your cause. However, you telling everyone that “Violent Crimes are way up” as a way to buttress your argument is just not supported by the statistics generated by Attorney General’s office. Violent crime in California has been falling since the 20 year high in 1992. Does it fluctuate from year to year? Absolutely but overall the population has risen but violent crime has fallen. Feel free to look it up.

Response time is almost always a matter of chance and not being overwhelmed. If the officer happens to be near the call for service you get a fast response time. If by change the officer is at the other end of his beat or sector you get a slower response time. Happenstance nor them being overwhelmed.

Then again the chances of Jeff the Concealed Carry Guys of the world actually being in condition yellow and being willing to assume all the criminal and civil liability of using force and being willing to live with the moral aftermath of the use of force and being at the right place and the right time to take action is just about zero.

It’s been my experience that being the victim of an act of violence by a stranger is a matter of impulse coupled with opportunity and not some well thought out plan by a mastermind criminal.

Personally, I’d stick with self-defense and constitutional rights argument. People will take you a lot more seriously if you do.

93 anon February 15, 2014 at 11:27 AM

77….pictured you as a 92 Carbine kind of guy……

94 Led February 15, 2014 at 1:12 PM

BAB is right on the money – our elected officials whose job it is to defend the laws of the state just conveniently decided not to do so in the case of gay marriage, and people were all about creating new facts on the ground by offering marriage licenses as soon as possible. Then in this case it’s all about caution – oh, there’s going to be an appeal, so my hands are tied! Riiiiiight.

95 Anon February 15, 2014 at 2:45 PM

Self defense or just pissed at someone. .

Jury Decides on Four of Five Counts in Loud-Music Murder Trial
.
By Elisha Fieldstadt

Jurors in the trial of a white Florida man who shot and killed a black teenager over loud music said on their fourth day of mulling the case that they reached a verdict on four of five counts, but cannot come to a consensus on one count of first-degree murder.

Michael Dunn, 47, says he was acting in self-defense when he shot at an SUV 10 times while parked next to four teens at a Jacksonville, Fla., gas station in November 2012.

The shots killed Jordan Davis, 17, of Marietta, Ga. Dunn is charged with first-degree murder, three counts of attempted murder and one count of firing a deadly missile into an occupied vehicle.

While testifying in his own defense on Tuesday, Dunn said that he started shooting because he felt threatened when he thought he saw the barrel of a gun emerge from the back window as Davis allegedly started getting out of the Dodge Durango.

Police said they didn’t find a weapon in the SUV the teens were in, and prosecutors said Davis — who has no arrest record — never exhibited a physical threat. Prosecutors also said forensic evidence proved that Davis never left the SUV.

96 Jeff February 16, 2014 at 7:23 PM

Not sure who else posted as Jeff – but the last comment re gangbanger was not mine…

I will take the liability that can come w self defense.

97 Alan February 17, 2014 at 3:46 PM

Appeal to take months even years. Last laugh belong to the people, its worth being patient to really let this ruling take permanency.
Always thought the State was an accomplish to murder by not permitting on self defense, fear of life reasons. The women killed by domestic abuse is perfect example. Defenseless against their attacker, knifed or beaten to death. Dumb ass politicians and Police wanting to make their job safer at the expense of law abiding citizens.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: