Who Cares about Peruta or CCW?

How can you persuade someone who doesn’t value the protections guaranteed to us in the Bill of Rights?

When engaging with the general public, there are three main things to focus on when it comes to the pending legal legislation on Peruta and Sheriff Bill Gore’s refusal to grant CCW for self-defense. (There is a longer much more detailed post on important legal precedent on this blog as well.) For the purpose of persuading your skeptical neighbors though, a more simple approach is probably best. You can use the three main points below to encourage open-mindedness in our communities. Happy debating…

_________________________________________________________________

First, we wish to provide information of the stringent process a law abiding citizen must go through to be granted a concealed carry weapon permit (CCW) in CA. Second, we wish to inform the general public of the ongoing legal battle surrounding our 2^nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the specific purpose of individual self-defense and why this is important to all of us. Finally, we urge Sheriff Bill Gore to reconsider his position on the issuance of CCWs in San Diego County.

Currently, there is a long and detailed process to obtain a CCW in CA. We are not asking that the Sheriff forgo any of the current security measures already in place.  All applicants for a CCW in CA must:

• submit themselves to the Department of Justice for fingerprinting and a thorough background check
• be at least 21 years old
• prove that they are of good moral character during 2 separate in-person interviews
• reside in the county to which they are applying
• complete an approved training course (16-24 hours),
• must demonstrate proficiency with the weapon for which the CCW will be issued
• standard permit holders must requalify every 2 years
• applicants pay fees of around $500 for the required training and background checks

The final requirement to obtain a CCW, and the focus of the legal challenge, is that the county sheriff determines whether or not “good cause” exists to obtain a CCW. In fact, there is a critically important case now working its way through the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (Peruta v. County of San Diego). At issue in the case, is the unconstitutionality of Sheriff Gore’s exceedingly narrow interpretation of “good cause”. According to Sherriff Gore, an individual’s desire for proactive self-defense is not “good” enough. He maintains this stance despite the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court in 2010 stated in no uncertain terms “that individual self-defense is “the central component” of the Second Amendment right”. The only way to obtain a CCW with Gore’s narrow idea of “good cause” is someone, who has a legitimate business and can prove good cause exists (i.e. cash transportation). The only other and most egregious proof required, is that someone has already been the victim of a crime to qualify for a CCW!  Gore’s interpretations of “good cause” precludes nearly all other applicants from receiving a CCW.

Why should you care about this issue? Think about the Bill of Rights. It is a list of freedoms that restricts the government, not the people. Should one man have the power to decide if and how we exercise our unalienable rights? Does one man have the authority in San Diego to decide who’s life is worthy of protecting? Do you find it reasonable that a person must provide documentation to an elected official proving they are already a victim of a crime (domestic violence, threats, stalking) before the government allows them to exercise their inalienable right to protect themselves? It is more likely that a person will be prevented from the lengthy CCW application process by physical harm or death and by then it would be too late to save their own lives.

This is not how our constitutional republic was designed to function. Can you imagine having to prove to a bureaucrat that you had a good reason to freely speak your mind, or worship, or prove that you had a good reason to plead the 5^th and not incriminate yourself during a trial? Of course not, the idea is absurd! Why then, when there are more than enough safeguards in place, should the second amendment be relegated to a second class right?  The Bill of Rights is our birthright, and should never be dependent on the subjective application process of a government official.

            Sheriff Gore, we call on you to honor the oath you made when you took office to uphold and defend the Constitution. Regardless of the outcome in Peruta v. San Diego, you have an obligation to facilitate the rights of citizens who have met the legal requirements for a CCW and realize that self-defense IS good cause!

Peruta, CCW, and San Diego

We write here to express our desire for an outcome that passes Constitutional muster in the pending litigation known as Peruta v. County of San Diego.  This case is pertains to the legality of San Diego County’s restrictive policy regarding requiring documentation of “good cause” that “distinguishes the applicant from the mainstream and places the applicant in harm’s way” (Cal. Pen. Code §§ 26150, 26155) before issuing a concealed carry permit. More simply stated, San Diego County Sheriff Bill Gore, in direct opposition to the Supreme Court does not deem self-defense or the defense of one’s family outside the home to be sufficiently “good cause” and therefore will not issue permits to anyone who desires one for the purpose of self-defense. We encourage all of you to go to the Sherriff’s website to see the requirements and current application. You can find this at https://www.sdsheriff.net/licensing/ccw_app.pdf

We oppose the continued efforts of the State Legislature, Governor Jerry Brown, State Attorney General Kamila Harris, and San Diego County Sherriff Bill Gore to deny WE THE PEOPLE our Constitutionally protected rights. These efforts fly in the face of the Constitutional Oath the listed government agencies have taken: “I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.”

We are bound by our consciences to see that to it that those who have sworn to uphold the United States Constitution, do so and ensure our enshrined unalienable rights, are upheld.  Peruta v. County of San Diego was originally filed in the United States District Court Southern District of California in October of 2009. The case was then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit and was heard by a three-judge panel, December 6, 2012 and the opinion was rendered on February 13, 2014. The majority opinion stated the following:

“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. (p55)” also “This is the crux of the matter for us. The Supreme Court has ruled that the state may not ban the ability of law abiding citizens to carry a loaded firearm in public for the purpose of self-defense. The 9^th Circuit panel found, “California’s favoring concealed carry over open carry does offend the Constitution, so long as it allows one of the two. (p.56)” {In light of the en banc/full panel hearing this opinion has been vacated.}

However, AB144 makes it a misdemeanor to carry an exposed and unloaded gun in public or in vehicles, with violators facing up to a year in prison or a potential fine of $1,000 when the law took effect on Jan 1, 2012. So there is currently no legal way for the average law-abiding citizen to “bear arms” in public.

National Review has highlighted that, “the right to keep and bear arms has been trapped somewhere between legal limbo and constitutional purgatory. The lower courts continue to whittle away the Supreme Court’s rulings in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago”. [National Review: Justice Thomas: Second Amendment Is Not a ‘Second-Class Right’” (12/08/15) by Josh Blackman] The article also quotes Justice Thomas stating, “the Second Amendment “is an independent, individual right” unconnected to “what the militia needs” and “If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing.”
Regardless of your personal feelings regarding the concealed carry of firearms for personal protection, or even gun ownership in general, we encourage you to consider the ramifications of the watering-down of our constitutionally protected rights by the State of California.  Can you imagine a scenario in which local law police treated our other constitutionally protected rights this way?  What if they decided to search your home without a warrant because you don’t have documentation proving you are personally protected by the 4^th Amendment? Could a district attorney force you to incriminate yourself if it is their opinion you don’t possess “good cause” to plead the 5^th? Could the county forbid you from speaking, gathering, or going to church because they think the 1^st Amendment is a public safety concern and you might offend/harm someone with your speech or religion? Of course not! The idea is absurd. So as Justice Thomas said, why do the courts treat the 2^nd Amendment as a second-class right? The 2nd Amendment, like all of the Constitution, was written to be clearly understood by the average voter. Our founding document clearly states that the “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

 

Oral arguments were heard by the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals in June of 2015. How long must the people wait to learn if our rights will be upheld? Will we be left in Constitutional limbo while this matter drags on if it will be kicked down the road to the United States Supreme Court?  With the Court lacking its strongest Constitutional originalist, Antonin Scalia, who knows what will become of the 2^nd Amendment.  However, the nation’s highest court has been far from silent on the issue of the 2^nd Amendment over the last decade. The two most similar and recent cases the Supreme Court has heard were McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. ___ (2010), and District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). Here are some extremely salient points from both.

 

McDonald v. Chicago 561 U.S. ___ (2010):

 

Opinion (Samuel A. Alito, Jr.)   “We assume that this is not municipal respondents’ view, so what they must mean is that the Second Amendment should be singled out for special—and specially unfavorable—treatment. We reject that suggestion.”

 

“Our decision in Heller points unmistakably to the answer. Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day,[Footnote 15] and in Heller, we held that individual self-defense is “the central component” of the Second Amendment right.”

 

“In Heller, we recognized that the codification of this right was prompted by fear that the Federal Government would disarm and thus disable the militias, but we rejected the suggestion that the right was valued only as a means of preserving the militias. 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 26). On the contrary, we stressed that the right was also valued because the possession of firearms was thought to be essential for self-defense. As we put it, self-defense was “the central component of the right itself.” Ibid.

 

Concurrence (Clarence Thomas): “The Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment declares that “[n]o State . . . shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” In interpreting this language, it is important to recall that constitutional provisions are “‘written to be understood by the voters.’ ” Heller, 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 3) (quoting United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931)).

 

“In my view, the record makes plain that the Framers of the Privileges or Immunities Clause and the ratifying-era public understood—just as the Framers of the Second Amendment did—that the right to keep and bear arms was essential to the preservation of liberty.”

 

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008):

 

Opinion (Antonin Scalia) “…the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons. (p9)”

 

“At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” … When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment … indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ”Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)). We think that Justice Ginsburg accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization. (p10-11)”

 

“From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia…These provisions demonstrate—again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia. (p11-12)”

 

“In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. (p64)”

 

If you value your Constitutional freedoms, all of the Bill of Rights must be defended by all of us. Otherwise, the liberties enjoyed by all of us in the free republic we know, love, and rely on, will be beyond our reach.