Supervisor: Court’s Pro-Gun Decision a Win for ‘Second Amendment Rights’

RIVERSIDE – Riverside County Board of Supervisors Chairman Jeff Stone today praised a federal court decision favoring gun owners who want to carry concealed handguns for personal defense, saying the ruling was a victory for ”Second Amendment rights.”

”I’m in shock,” Stone said when informed about the 2- 1 decision in Peruta v. County of San Diego. ”I can’t believe the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals made a ruling that actually upholds the Constitution.”

Stone drew parallels between the court decision and a resolution he authored in November 2009 that called on Riverside County Sheriff Stan Sniff to remove barriers law-abiding residents might otherwise face when applying for concealed firearms permits.

”My resolution stated simply that if a law-abiding person comes forward and says, ‘I want to carry a gun for personal protection,’ they should be granted that request,” Stone said.

The Peruta case involved five San Diego County residents, led by Edward Peruta, who had sought or were considering obtaining permits to carry concealed pistols for protection. According to court papers, the plaintiffs’ applications had either been rejected — or they feared that, based on county criteria, they would be rejected.

The plaintiffs sued the county, alleging violations of their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. They specifically pointed to the statewide standard, applied in San Diego and the state’s 57 other counties, of requiring gun permit applicants to demonstrate ”good cause” in order to justify being granted a permit.

The plaintiffs argued that the criterion was arbitrary and opened the door to abridging ”constitutionally protected conduct” rooted in the Second Amendment, according to the Ninth Circuit ruling.

The lawsuit made no headway in state court, resulting in the federal appeal.

Ninth Circuit Judges Diarmuid O’Scannlain and Consuelo Callahan ruled that the state’s ”good cause” provision was inconsistent with previous rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court that recognized ”the right to protect oneself against public and private violence, thus extending the right in some form to wherever a person could become exposed to … violence.”

”It brings to mind scenes such as a woman toting a small handgun in her purse as she walks through a dangerous neighborhood, or a night-shift worker carrying a handgun in his coat as he travels to and from his job site,” the judges wrote.

In his dissenting opinion, Judge Sidney Thomas argued that handguns should be limited to individuals who can show a clearly legitimate need to carry one — the foundation for the ”good cause” standard.

”It limits the risk to public safety by reducing the number of guns in public circulation, but allows those who will most likely need to defend themselves in public to carry a handgun,” Thomas stated.

Stone, a gun owner, told City News Service he won’t be surprised if the California Attorney General’s Office appeals the 2-1 federal decision invalidating the ”good cause” limitation.

”In the meantime, I would hope that sheriffs across the state honor the Second Amendment rights of their citizens,” Stone said. ”With the state releasing felons into our communities to make room in prisons, that’s all the more reason people should have the means to protect themselves.”

Stone used the rationale behind his 2009 resolution as an example.

”I wrote that at the request of an Iraq War veteran,” Stone said. ”He went over there to defend this country, carrying a gun, and yet when he got back, he couldn’t carry one here, even though he lived in a dangerous neighborhood. People have the right to protect themselves and their families.”

5 Responses to "Supervisor: Court’s Pro-Gun Decision a Win for ‘Second Amendment Rights’"

  1. Chad   February 13, 2014 at 10:00 pm

    This is exactly what the 2nd amendment was written for! Police forces are reactive. You can’t carry a cop with you!

    Reply
  2. Ruger LC9 Owner   February 14, 2014 at 4:53 pm

    Kudos to Supervisor Stone and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. While I do sometimes travel in areas where having my Ruger LC9 would be valid in my mind to justify a concealed carry permit, I don’t think I should have to justify it outside of that which is afforded me by the Second Amendment.
    Two additional comments:
    1. I used to carry a 22 handgun when I irrigated citrus trees in a remote part of Supervisor Stone’s Temecula area in 1970. I had no concealed carry permit but it sure helped protect me from rattlesnakes.
    2. I "carry" in my house. Given the number and variety of home invasions, I will protect my life if you decide to break into my home. In Utah, home invasions are few and far between. Everyone there knows the owner is most likely "carrying" and doing so legally both inside and outside their home

    Reply
  3. Reality Checker   February 15, 2014 at 10:33 am

    The progressive left or any democrat for that matter and even some RINO republicans have no problem stopming all over our 2nd amendment rights. Or any constitutional right for that matter. But, when 1/4 of the population doesnt even realize that the earth revolves around the sun, what do you expect to get when these same people can vote?!!! You vote for liberals you get what you deserve. Nothing. Its easy to take candy or ice cream from a retarded kid.

    Reply
  4. Reality Checker   February 15, 2014 at 10:45 am

    And dont vote for liberal leaning sherrifs either. Remember they are elected, they dont answer to the board of supervisors. They can be like Obama, if they dont like the law, they will simply ignore it and do what they darn well please anyway. A progtard sheriff will shove his middle finger in your face and dare you to do something about it, instead of upholding and enforcing the law reagrdless of how they feel about it personally. Progressive liberals dont have any integrity or character. They are also mind numbingly stupid most of the time. Mix the two together and you get a marxist dictator bent on abolishing your second amedment rights. Their goal is to take all your guns, period. Any way they can. And this court just tild these retards to talk to the hand! That the 2nd amendment is what it says it is.
    By the way, WHY DID WE NEED A FEDERAL COURT TO MAKE A DECISION OR OPINION TO STATE THE 2nd AMENDMENT IS WHAT IT SAYS IT IS??!!! Its plainly written! I’ll tell you again why: Its because the left wants to take your guns away from you ANY WAY THEY CAN, AS FAST AS THEY CAN!!! Period.
    The progtards mnow what it says, they just dont give a crap!!!

    Reply
  5. Irish Eyes   February 23, 2014 at 10:55 pm

    Wow, I for one am excited that my husband and I will be able to carry. I was interested in a carry permit and downloaded the forms from the Riverside Sheriff’s Website, but there were so many pages and questions that I just gave up. I am hoping that they will stream line the process so we the law abiding folks can apply.

    Reply

Leave a Reply