Sometimes the good guys win

February 26, 2014
Roger Freberg

Roger Freberg

OPINION By ROGER FREBERG

It’s been an interesting year and its only February.

A landmark legal case decided by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on the 13th of February will have profound effects on California, New York and possibly Iran. Before we can talk about this case, here is a little background.

When grandma packs we feel safer

Three years ago, almost to the day, I wrote an article that discussed, guns, self- defense and conceal and carry permits in California and around the country. State laws are not uniform. Vermont residents can go almost anywhere with a gun strapped to their side while in New York, a 64 ounce soda represents a clear and present danger. Check out this greatness in journalism.

What is a “conceal and carry?”

Carrying and concealing a weapon, in particular a handgun, is considered “normal” in the majority of states in our country provided you have the appropriate training and licensure. This is not a license to use your weapon, just to conceal and carry it. If you find yourself in a situation where you used your gun, you’d be arrested as the criminal you may be until the truth gets sorted out. Those who care about you will be relieved that you survived a life threatening ordeal. As the saying goes, “it’s better to be judged by 12 than carried by six.”

As I mentioned in my previous article, you should never buy a gun or obtain conceal and carry licensure if you cannot visualize ever using your gun. Training and practice are necessary to increase your comfort and proficiency.

Landmark case

You might have missed the recent landmark decision in California regarding conceal and carry if you’ve been focused on the many challenges in our world: the violence in Syria and the Ukraine, Obamacare or the further alleged sexual adventures of a couple of our local supervisors , Adam Hill and Bruce Gibson, whom I am almost sure are not an item, but I try not to judge.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Peruta, et al. v. San Diego County (February 13, 2014). The issue involved the existing conceal and carry permit process which made it virtually impossible to get a license. “Writing for the majority, Judge Diamuid O’Scannlain concluded that ‘San Diego’s good cause law permitting requirement impermissibly infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense’” (Washington Times). The court said that San Diego’s requirement that an individual must prove a need to defend themselves before obtaining a permit was unconstitutional.

The ruling stated in part,”Thus, the question is not whether the California scheme (in light of San Diego County’s policy) allows some people to bear arms outside the home in some places at some times; instead, the question is whether it allows the typical responsible, law-abiding citizen to bear arms in public for the lawful purpose of self-defense. The answer to the latter question is a resounding ‘no.’”

Today in San Diego

So, you might ask, what is San Diego’s official response to all of this? On Feb. 21, the sheriff of San Diego published his decision and included a note to the county supervisors. The sheriff in his note stated that “the opinion provides clear guidance in the issuing of CCWs (Conceal and Carry License) in California.” However, he is buying time by saying that he isn’t going to switch to the new process until the court’s judgment becomes final. Not everyone is waiting. The sheriff of Orange County has already announced that she will comply with the ruling.

CCWs in San Luis Obispo County?

I had the opportunity to sit down with our Sheriff Ian Parkinson over coffee at the Nautical Bean, and he offered a candid appraisal of the CCW permit process, where he sees it going, and some of his concerns. Here are some summary points I made based on our conversation:

Ian is a supporter of the Second Amendment and has doubled the number of CCW permits issued during his watch compared to his predecessor. He has a dual concern: Citizens should have the rights given to them by the Second Amendment, but he is also working to keep everyone safe.

He believes that the job of law enforcement is to enforce the laws but not to write them. He will support the 9th Circuit Court’s decision when it becomes final.

Currently, the sheriff’s office processes a number of CCW requests that had previously been handled by some of our cities. When the court’s ruling is finalized, Ian plans to shift part or all of the process back to the cities. (I suspect it is a workload consideration.)

I asked Sheriff Parkinson if he had any concerns about the ruling. His concern seemed genuine when he said he worried about giving a license to someone who checks out fine, but who really isn’t.

Where do we go from here?

A couple of things we already know. First, the sheriff in San Diego has announced that he will not appeal the court’s decision. If you go to his department’s web site and check the news for Feb. 21, you can read all about it, plus his note to the San Diego County Board of Supervisors. Second, the Washington Times reported that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals believed their rulings would stand up to Supreme Court scrutiny, should anyone wish to take the decision in that direction.

It has been reported that the California Attorney General is not likely to cross the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal’s ruling. One wonders if the California Legislature could pull itself together to adopt the CCW processes already in place in one of the other 34 states that have already addressed this issue. I suspect that some California legislators have placed themselves so far out of the mainstream on this issue, they’ll find it impossible to accept the opinions of a court of law. That’s what elections are for.

The Los Angeles Times suggested a novel solution–legalize “open carry.” This would allow citizens to wear their handguns openly as in the Old West. Although this sounds fun, the real benefit of conceal and carry to a community is that the bad guys don’t know who is armed and who is not. By the way, bad guys like to prey on places that are called “gun free zones.” Some recent examples include movie theaters (the bad guy passed a bunch of theaters in Colorado to find one with a gun-free sign), restaurants, colleges and schools.

I don’t know about you, but I am still uncomfortable about giving certain politicians the right to carry. I guess we have to take the good with the bad.

Stay safe.

 

Like CalCoastNews on Facebook and get links to opinions and more.

 


Loading...
BHirsh

“Citizens should have the rights given to them by the Second Amendment, but…”


Two things: 1) The Constitution doesn’t “give” rights, it guarantees them; 2) There’s always a “but”, isn’t there?


“[H]e worried about giving a license to someone who checks out fine, but who really isn’t.”


In this republic, you can’t start from the position that everybody is guilty and eliminate the innocent from the list, one-by-one. It is constitutionally impermissible to burden a fundamental right of the people using prior restraint.


Niles Q

I have a few thoughts on how to make guns a little safer in our society since they are likely to always be with us.


Every handgun and rifle that is sold, from a BB gun to a shotgun, hunting rifle, 44-magnum etc… has to come with a trigger lock. The device is part of the sale and everyone who buys a gun has to make the decision whether to use it to secure their weapon from the accidental use by children.


If a kid gets ahold of an unsecured weapon then the gun owner is held responsible to some degree, perhaps involuntary manslaughter or criminal neglegence?


Anyone who collects guns, or owns three or more, must store them in a secure gun vault. Maybe a variance for one in the night stand (still with a lock though). This would help protect against burglars and thieves.


All handguns and rifles will be test fired before sale and the bullets scanned into a database to help track weapons used in future crimes. The manufacturers can do this. Same for used guns sold at the gun shows and the shops.


Gives the police a leg-up on the crooks who use guns to commit crimes and a data base for ballistics in murder cases.


A person has the Constitutional Right to own a gun but if you turn your weapon(s) on your fellow man, commit mass murder, schoolyard/workplace shootings, serial murder, you automatically get the death penalty. Such crimes should be federal crimes, that way everyone gets the same punishment.


And you get executed by firing squad (poetic justice). I’m sure there would be plenty of volunteers to meter justice to some of these types of SOBs.


I consider such mass killings to be crimes against society and humanity and there should be no excuses for doing it. No mental defects, no temporary insanity, drug induced, none of that BS. You turn on your guns on your fellow man — you die, either by your own hand, the police or the courts.


There should be a special tax on handguns and ammo and that money pooled to help victims of gun violence. We charge hunters special hunting taxes and use the money to help wildlife. We can do this to help the people who suffer from gun violence..


Beef up background checks, tighten sentences for weapons violations, and use the media to stress the point that we can make our society a little safer, if we just do some common sense things, as I’ve noted here.


choprzrul

Replace ‘guns’ above with ‘voting’, ‘speech’, ‘religion’, ‘the press’……


Please stop advocating for the oppression of Civil Rights of law abiding citizens.


Cindy

I think this part of his rant sounds like a good idea. Why not?


“All handguns and rifles will be test fired before sale and the bullets scanned into a database to help track weapons used in future crimes. The manufacturers can do this. Same for used guns sold at the gun shows and the shops.”


Moderator

Please stop advocating for a calguns pile on (on calguns).

There is no battle for you here.


furyous68

Moderator-


His post on CalGuns did nothing of the sort. If you bothered to read his actual post, then you would see sll he did was let us know about the article. None of his posts asked or encouraged us to come on here & start a “CalGuns pile on”. If you don’t like freedom of speech, then I believe you are in the wrong business.


Moderator

choprzrul “I enjoy doing battle with the local anti gun crowd in the comments section.”


Any further comments/?/! moderator@calcoastnews.com


choprzrul

By “doing battle”, I am speaking of engaging in lively debate in defense of Civil Rights.


I’m not sure where the idea stems from that I was encouraging any kind of dog piling. I was informing the community about an article published here. Copying and pasting the entire article is a copyright infringement, so I provided a link back here and posted a snip of the article.


“I think that you will find the entire article to be pretty unbiased.” was intended to be kudos to Mr. Freberg.


Just to be perfectly clear, I will ALWAYS advocate for ALL Civil Rights. I really, REALLY, dislike seeing fundamental individual Civil Rights being oppressed. That includes the right of those who don’t see things like I do to say the things that they do. I might not agree with their content, but I fully support their right to say it. I also support freedom of the press. You see, next to my God and my family, Civil Rights are quite important to me and I am willing to stand up in support of Civil Rights.


Kevin Rice

None of your “ideas” are new, and some of them are already California law.


Imaginative “ideas” without familiarity of the subject matter makes for poor regulation.


shelworth

The stupidest laws are those that say a gun must be kept empty and locked. If you need your gun in an emergency, you need it now!, not in the minutes that it would take to unlock it and then load it.


zaphod

man bites dog boy shoots sister


zaphod
cch

Great! Looking forward to gun battles in the streets, a la the Wild West… we’ll all be so much safer!


choprzrul

Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, Vermont, and Wyoming have Constitutional Carry laws, i.e. NO permit required to either open carry or concealed carry. Yet, I hear none of your described ‘gun battles in the streets’ stories coming from those states.


We do, however, have ‘gun battles in the streets’ here in California with all of the thugs, gang bangers, and cartels. Even little ‘ol Oceano has people riding up on their bikes and doing armed robbery of a vegetable stand. The current system is severely broken, unconstitutional, and unsustainable.


hijinks

“Yet, I hear none of your described ‘gun battles in the streets’ stories coming from those states. ”


You must get your news from that transmitter the evil dentist implanted in your wisdom tooth. There was indeed a shoot out on the streets in Arizona that anybody with their ears open would know about — a US Congress Member was the target.


Facts don’t matter. Ideology over all.


zaphod
zaphod

Tea party off shoot (true pun)


SpeakTruth

This is nothing more than fear mongering. California’s encroachment on the right of personal defense is uncommon. The majority of states allow for concealed and/or open carry. Some states don’t require any permit at all. According to you, states like that would have the worst murder rates in the country, but contrary to your imagination, the reality is the exact opposite.



shelworth

I think if you do some research you will find the “wild west” wasn’t so wild. When everyone is armed people tend to be polite.


kettle

Very polite.


san luis obispo committee of vigilance

http://www.heritageshared.org/files/EarlyMurders.pdf


shelworth

Vigilantism tends to happen when the average citizen gets fed up with the government not doing anything to stop the crime. If the authorities won’t help you, you have no choice but to help yourself.


zaphod
Slowerfaster

BTW … I support the notion to have Roger’s grandmother ‘pack’ a gun.

I’m pretty sure that she’ll never use it.


r0y

Nice article, Roger. It almost makes me feel like Ian was a good choice… except:


How many applications were submitted vis-a-vie the “doubled the number of [CCW] permits issued” – numbers are a fickle thing like that. Percentage-wise, how does the current Sheriff compare to the former Sheriffs?


Also, I have to take measure with the statement that anyone in law enforcement “works to keep people safe” – that is ALMOST fiction. LEO’s, at best, may have a 0 reaction time (usually not), thus they work to react to potential harm for people. AND THIS IS HOW IT SHOULD BE. I do NOT want a PREVENTIVE police force (aka Goon Squad); I’ll take the risks of keeping them reactionary, it provides more freedom and liberty.


Irony of Ironies: this is the 9th Circuit we’re talking about. Go figure. I’m a bit nervous that if someone who does not understand the 2nd Amendment actually wants to take this to the SCOTUS, then it has a good chance of being over-turned (the 9th’s greatest record).


choprzrul

It won’t be overturned by SCOTUS, it very closely follows the language of their Heller decision.


Slowerfaster

Hoooey ! Talk about conflating a bunch of scary, boogie-man tropes that have nothing to do with guns, or safety, or personal protection. Just muddying the waters in order to excite the small minds of impressionable dolts.


The Second Amendment is not absolute. It was carefully worded by the authors to reflect a pre-condition: the necessity for a free society to have and maintain “a well regulated militia”.

These rootin’-tootin’ John Wayne wannabe’s inevitably forget or ignore that part … most especially the ‘well regulated’ stipulation.


We currently have plenty of concealed weapons carriers that fit the Second Amendment’s full criteria. Most are law enforcement officers, on and off duty. They’ve been trained in the use of guns, and the times NOT to use them.

Still, sometimes even they make mistakes.


Extending a mythical ‘right’ to unqualified individuals ends up with unstable hotheads like George Zimmerman and the current maniac Michael Dunn that carry and USE guns to kill innocent people they claim to be threatened by.


info

“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”.


Per District of Columbia vs. Heller (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court stated “the adjective ‘well-regulated’ implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training”


Granted I sympathize with your argument of ‘extending a mythical right to unqualified individuals’, I also sympathize with citizens of certain cities and states who are unable to KEEP and BEAR arms regardless if properly trained and disciplined. That needs to be fixed and that is why the ruling makes sense.


choprzrul

I am going to start this retort with the assumption that neither you nor I are A) smarter than our current Supreme Court, B) the Constitution is the law of the land, and C) we are both living under, and reliant upon, Supreme Court decisions.


From the Heller decision:


c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of

these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee

the individual right to possess and carry weapons in

case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed

by the historical background of the Second Amendment.

We look to this because it has always been widely understood

that the Second Amendment, like the First and

Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The

very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes

the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it

“shall not be infringed.”


Pretty much invalidates your entire rant.


Slowerfaster

No way to measure just who is ‘smarter’, but the current SCOTUS has made some boneheaded rulings lately, most notorious the Citizens United decision that gives those with inordinate powers of vast sums of money to invalidate the democratic process. This 5-4 decision is so clearly wrongheaded and against the principles outlined in the Constitution that I am convinced that it will be reversed by a more competent future court.


Even when the now SCOTUS comes down on the side of history and makes enlightened judgments, they too are often 5-4; with Scalia and his two sock puppets…Thomas and Alito legislating from the bench in opposition. Sometimes they are joined by Kennedy and at other times by Roberts.


AFA the Constitution, when written, the most advanced personal carry ‘arms’ of the time were single shot, muzzle loading muskets and pistols.

Anything more dangerous ( grenades and cannon i.e.) were locked up in forts and armories. So your revisionist historical construct doesn’t hold muster.


furyous68

Actually, the US Constitution was drafted based on their ideals & experiences with the British government. That government had tried to confiscate all the small arms of the inhabitants of the colonies. They tried to silence their newspapers. They would barge into homes without warrant to search for “contraband & illegal weapons”. These specific experiences lead to the 1st, 2nd, & 14th Amendments to the Bill of Rights.


If the writers of the Bill of Rights couldn’t have imagined the firearms of today (ridiculous…. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_Air_Rifle while not powder driven… deadly nonetheless) then we must use that same reasoning & determine that anything not printed on a moveable type-set printer press can’t be protected by the 1st Amendment.


The fact of the matter is that they did not specify what type of arms are protected, because they expected that firearms would continue to develop, as they had since the first person took a tube & shoved gunpowder & a round rock down it.


The whole notion of modern gun control (as in being for “Public Safety”) in the US was never thought of until the National Firearms Act of 1934 was created & approved in response to the problems with organized crime & their use of sub-machine guns (Tommy Gun) & Automatic Rifles (B.A.R.). Ever since then, the door was opened for “Reasonable Limitations” to a right that was specifically worded with “Shall Not Be Infringed”… the ONLY amendment designated as such.


furyous68

PS… Nothing stops you from owning working cannon & artillery pieces today (designated “Destructive Devices” by BATF) except time & money.


The early congress was too poor to purchase its own cannon, so private citizens purchased them from the French, and gave them to the army… or they stole/ commandeered them from the British Armories & supply trains. The Continental Navy was comprised of privately owned merchant ships… most of which had their own cannon to defend against pirates & privateers. They were given Letters of Marque and went about their business raiding British supply ships & attacking frigates. Only the British outlawed private ownership of these arms… nothing in the Constitution barred them from private ownership. There were no laws on the books against private ownership either.


SloHeadInTheSand

MODERATOR…why are comments ‘hidden’ due to low comment rating? Is CCN North Korea?


Moderator

The people reading get to vote, someone posted this article to Cal Guns so those visitors are voting on the comments.


Is this really was North Korea you would not dare to comment or you get arrested etc.


The irony of people blaming CCN for what commentators (and visitors) are doing.


Slowerfaster

As another, more famous, American once said:


“I welcome their hate.”


If I were afraid of negative comments, or anonymous ‘thumbs-downs’ by orchestrated, doppleganger, keyboard crusaders; I would never post.


As 99% of all USA inhabitants are mush-headed fools or outright fascists, it is a badge of honor to be opposed only 5/1.


zaphod
Robert1

Roger, thank you for this unbiased article. I look forward to the Sheriff issuing more CWP’s and our rights restored as they should have never been infringed.


Kevin 99

“Unbiased?” How about the gratuitous and totally irrelevant shot at Supervisors Hill and Gibson? Perhaps Mr. Freberg should ask himself why he perseverates on the sex lives of others… Let me also ask the 2nd Amendment Obsessives this question: Do you have any problem–any problem at all–with a concerted effort by young African-American men to obtain CWP’s? How about by young Hispanic men in Paso Robles?


I ask this question because I think I know what might have happened if Trayvon Martin had pulled a weapon from his jacket and shot George Zimmerman, using a “Stand Your Ground” defense…


choprzrul

If you are qualified to legally BUY a firearm, you should be legally able to BEAR a firearm.


Your race baiting is not going to work here. Look at the history of gun control here in California. It has a shameful history and basis in racism.


Pop Quiz: what events prompted Sacramento to ban the open carry of loaded firearms in California?


furyous68

Not at all. Do you?


If you are legally able to purchase a firearm, then you should be able to carry that firearm for protection, should you choose to do so.


To purchase a firearm, you go through a background check. To get the CCW, you must pass a live-scan check (think “Super” background check), and go through training with your firearm & in the laws of self-defense per the State of CA.


Anyone who goes through that, and is approved for the license, is O.K. to carry in my book.


SpeakTruth

“Citizens should have the rights given to them by the Second Amendment”.


It does not matter whether you believe it is a natural right or a God-given right; the right of self defense is not given to anyone by their government. The 2nd amendment protects against any law that would infringe on that right. It should never have been taken away in the first place.


r0y

Well said. Unfortunately, we have a “constitutional scholar” in office who seriously believes (as many failed academicians) that the Constitution is a document of “negative liberties” – spoken like a true statist. Yes, it is a document of negative liberties. Negative for the GOVERNMENT. Or at least, used to be.


Slowerfaster

“Negative liberties” huh ?


Published like a true Orwellian.


r0y

The phrase “negative liberties” was a direct quote from Obama. You might be right, it does sound very Orwellian.


zaphod

negative liberties only “sounds” like a bad thing, Obama was quoting Isaiah Berlin


Slowerfaster

“It does not matter whether you believe it is a natural right or a God-given right;”


Well, then, That begs the question ( or questions ) :


Are guns ‘natural’ ( i.e. derived from nature ) ? Or did GOD invent them ? Were firearms the low-hanging fruit from the tree of knowledge that the Almighty warned against ?

( Where’s Ted when I need him ? ).


If it is a ‘God-given right”, what does God sling in His backpack, or have as a sidearm ?

Would he have a pea-shooter .22 cal ? Why not a .357 mag ? A LAWS rocket ? Maybe a nuke tipped Cruise missle ?


Really…if weapons are God-given ( and surely, you are one of the chosen ones ), wouldn’t He provide you with the most efficient weapon to smite others with ?


SpeakTruth

As an atheist, I take strong offense to your accusation that I am one of the “chosen ones”. My intent was to state that the right of self defense is a right everyone has regardless of the opinion of their government or that of evidence-denying detractors like yourself.


You may not think that guns are necessary, however it is unrealistic to expect that a person could defend them self against a gun-bearing criminal with anything less than equal force.


And for those looking to go down the “What would Jesus do” rabbit hole:

“But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.” – Luke 22:36


tojofay

“I asked Sheriff Parkinson if he had any concerns about the ruling. His concern seemed genuine when he said he worried about giving a license to someone who checks out fine, but who really isn’t.”


Autobiographical I’d say.


choprzrul

Nothing about being concerned about denying the free exercise of Civil Rights by law abiding citizens? May I remind the good Sheriff of California Civil Code 52.3:


(a) No governmental authority, or agent of a governmental

authority, or person acting on behalf of a governmental authority,

shall engage in a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement

officers that deprives any person of rights, privileges, or

immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the

United States or by the Constitution or laws of California.


Hmmmm…….how does Ian go about reconciling his ongoing oppression of Civil Rights against 52.3 I wonder???