Recently we saw a major Second Amendment victory with the Ninth Circuit Courts passing a 2-1 ruling in favor of shall issue in the state of California. I should make this disclaimer first, I am not a lawyer and have not played one on TV, but I did sleep in a Holiday Inn Express once.
With that being said, let’s take a look at a layman’s view of the recent court rulings.
First off, California is a “may” issue state, one of several left in the Union. Upon closer examination, most of the may issue states seem to be the most draconian as far as their gun control measures go. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that these states also have a strong liberal mindset. Last week I published a blog that talked about the issue of gun control and voter districts, here is a link to An Inconvenient Truth. One of the points made in the discussion is how there was a disproportionate gun related crime in voter districts that had a high voting record for the current administration. To take that point one step further isn’t it interesting that so many of the “may” issue states follow this same model. It doesn’t surprise me much why there is so much chatter going on behind closed liberal doors as this ruling could severely damage future gun control measures.
Rightfully so, the courts recognized the your Second Amendment was an individual right. That is very important to remember, on top of which you cannot be confined to exercising your Second Amendment to your home/dwelling only.
So, that brings up the major point of “good cause”. The court ruling recognized that San Diego County’s view on good cause was flawed when it prevented applicants from obtaining a permit. The county’s main argument was personal protection or concern for one’s safety didn’t meet the requirements for good cause. So, one has to ask and the burden for clarification should fall on San Diego County for defining what they consider to be good cause. Should you have already being injured, lost loved ones or even worse killed to prove good cause. Clearly, their intention was their subjective view, which denied thousands of their civil liberties.
I believe the ruling was largely nailed shut because California does not have a mechanism to support a citizen’s Second Amendment. They ban not only concealed carry, but open carry as well, thus by proxy denying folks of their civil liberties.
The irony of it all, is a state who has a history of supporting civil rights does not appear to be blind to the issue. Instead, they recklessly assault civil liberties on a daily basis. My sincere hope is the ruling stands up to the appeals we all know will be lurking in the background. That is stands out as another huge victory in addition to the Supreme Court’s ruling and the 7th Circuit’s ruling as well.
In the mean time, if I worked in the office responsible for concealed carry permits in San Diego county I might want to make sure I have plenty of coffee and a comfortable chair to handle the wave of requests that are sure to flood their office and the rest of the state’s offices as well.
The CalGuns Foundation has projected that during the first year of “shall-issue” licensing in California nearly 1.5 million residents will apply!
http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/cgf_sheriff_exhibits.A.pdf
Of course, we’ll probably see this case end up in the Supreme Court. It’d be interesting to see what happens in the meantime.
Jeff’, I enjoy reading your posts, and Good Cause was no exception. In the interest of full disclosure, I am a police officer in Southern California. My opinions are a reflection of my life experience (not the gun control line preached here in California. I have no problem with responsible citizens carrying firearms. My concern is that many of these newly minted card carrying armed citizens will not have the proper training or mindset to be truly effective with their sidearm. Few will practice regularly. My work community suffers from these same issues (and we are required to be armed). Sure, give a citizen permission to carry a firearm, but mandate the individual also receives training in weapon handling, marksmanship, and use of force. It is a good idea to throw some combat mindset training in to the mix as well.
Thank you for the kind words and I appreciate your honesty. My only comment is to turn to the examples set by the hundreds of thousands of folks who have undergone their CHL or carry permits in other states. Practice nor mindset is a requirement to exercise their constitutional rights nor should it be in any state.
Jeff, I understand your perspective in regards to every citizen’s right to bear arms. I would like to see California become a lot less restrictive with their futile attempts at criminal behavior control through the implementation of tighter restrictions on law abiding citizens. For me, carrying a firearm for personal defense or defense of someone else is not just a right, it is a sacred responsibility. I know officers who are never armed off-duty–shame on them. The private citizen who chooses to exercise his/her right assumes this same sacred responsibility (like it or not) when he/she makes the decision to be armed. Folks who decide to carry a firearm for personal defense should practice and have their mind right before they get into a situation where they might have to kill someone. The person who carries a firearm for personal defense should be versed in when it is appropriate to display and/or use it. The armed citizen should know what to expect in terms of personal performance in a high-stress real life force encounter. The armed citizen should be intimately familiar with the operation of his/her sidearm of choice. The list goes on. As I said in my earlier post, there are police officers who barely meet the conditions I described. By all means, let’s not advocate for placing unnecessary restrictions on the rights of those citizens who choose to be armed, but let’s also be smart about ensuring these armed private citizens are an asset to themselves and society and not a burden. I certainly don’t want some guy with a license to carry a firearm unintentionally injuring an innocent person or losing his weapon to a more determined criminal, because he was not prepared to be armed in the first place. Thank- you for the platform to express my views Jeff.
I am glad you feel comfortable expressing your view and I certainly maintain an open door policy. I understand what you are saying, but there is a difference between what you are implying, which I view as a moral component and the right itself. The constitutional right is not granted because someone meet a qualification or changed their view point. It is an inalienable right, pure and simple. I don’t know how much knowledge base you have on CHL permits, but most require a class be successfully completed. Each state varies in content, depth and scope. Is it a enough, that is not up to me to decide. I am much more inclined to express an expectation that an individual chooses of their own free will to pursue further education than make it a requirement.
In closing, as of today now, there have been 238 deaths on the Texas roads this year alone. All it takes to obtain a license here is a 32 hour class and successful completion of a drivers test. You are much more likely to experience a traumatic or critical event in your vehicle. I feel it is important we keep things in perspective and not fall too far down the rabbits hole.
Most citizens who carry should get additional training but I see most of them shoot a hundred rounds of target ammo and that’s the extent of their training. They don’t even practice with their spicy defensive rounds. Even many in law enforcement suffer from diminishing skills simply because after the academy all they do is shoot a hundred rounds or so for their annual or semi-annual qualifications. Qualification courses of fire geared towards the lowest common denominators. Lack of continuous and realistic training is an epidemic for both private citizens and law enforcement.