County gun law ruled unconstitutional

This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals court decided Thursday that a San Diego restriction on carrying concealed guns in public for self defense infringes on citizens’ 2nd Amendment rights.

In a 2-1 ruling, a panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned San Diego County permit requirements because the court said they denied responsible, law-abiding citizens the right to carry concealed handguns in public for self-defense.

GunsCalifornia generally prohibits carrying guns, whether loaded or not, in public locations.

But residents may apply for a license to carry a concealed weapon in the city or county where they live or work. To obtain licenses in San Diego County, residents must show “good moral character,” complete a training course and establish they have valid reasons for needing the gun.

The court said San Diego’s policy was too restrictive under the 2nd Amendment because it required applicants to show a specific concern for personal safety.

“Given this requirement, the ‘typical’ responsible, law-abiding citizen in San Diego County cannot bear arms in public for self-defense,” wrote Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain, an appointee of President Reagan. He was joined by Judge Consuelo Callahan, an appointee of President George W. Bush.

In a dissent, Judge Sidney Thomas, a President Clinton appointee, said the majority rulingupends the entire California firearm regulatory scheme.”

Thomas said the majority had wrongly reasoned that because California bans the open carry of guns in most public areas, it must permit residents to carry concealed handguns in public without having to show specific concerns for personal safety.



  • Fully Automatic

    Looks like Al Gore's little pigmy brother, the Mighty SD County Sheriff, got his little pee-pee smacked…
    WELCOME TO AMERICA Billy Boy…Time to Read the Constitution…This time Make Sure You actually UNDERSTAND The OATH YOU TOOK to UPHOLD IT…That Means You actually have to read it.

  • LD S

    I never understood why only people with so called "specific concerns for their safety" could get a CCW permit. Why doesnt "Im concerned that I could someday be a victim of a crime" count as a concern?

  • ron

    Of course the one who voted against the common sense and right of a law adibing citizen to protect themselves was the Democrat Clinton douche bag!

    • LD S

      Reading the actual discussion of the ruling was interesting. Basically the court ruled that a ban on open carry but not concealed is not necessarily unconstitutional, but what effectively amounts to a ban on both concealed AND non-concealed, as in San Diego's case, is unconstitutional.

      • LD S

        They basically said average law abiding citizens should have a method of carry for use of self defense, whether it be concealed or open carry.

        • PB GEEK

          Actually what the court said is that you don't need a reason to carry, just like the 2nd Amendment states. WOW!!! The 9th Circus Court of Schlameels finally got one right. I'm almost impressed.

Comments are closed.

Notice: you are using an outdated browser. Microsoft does not recommend using IE as your default browser. Some features on this website, like video and images, might not work properly. For the best experience, please upgrade your browser.