Tag Cloud
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
El Dorado County Supes Favor Liberal Concealed Weapons Permits
by Vince Ward, published on August 28, 2009 at 4:07PM
Storyline: concealed weapon permits
No high resolution image exists...
At their meeting August 25, 2009, all members of the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors voted to approve a resolution asking "that the duly elected or appointed El Dorado County Sheriff adopt and maintain a fair and equitable “Shall Issue” policy for the issuance of CCW licenses." The resolution does not have the force of law, but essentially criticizes the Sheriff's recent policy of not recognizing "self protection" as "good cause" to issue a concealed weapons permit to persons otherwise qualified.
The resolution focuses attention on the Sheriff's discretion to issue or deny concealed weapons permits, an issue that begins to loom large in the current race for El Dorado County Sheriff. At least two of the current seven candidates have expressed strong support for granting permits upon request to individual citizens who wish to carry a concealed weapon and can meet the qualifications for training, experience, and background. Such a policy is referred to as "Shall Issue," and is in effect in 38 other states in the United States and in many counties in California. Two states require no permit whatsoever.
The concealed weapon permit controversy is driven by two considerations. First is self-protection; in many El Dorado County areas, the Sheriff's response time is very long, and so has a limited deterrent effect on crime. Also, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which determines Federal law questions in California, recently decided that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is an individual right, as is the right to free speech or to assemble, and should not be infringed without a compelling government interest. As the experience in jurisdictions which adopt a "Shall Issue" policy is that crime diminishes when citizens can more readily obtain concealed weapons permits, the argument is that restrictive issuance policies do not serve any legitimate purpose.
Conversation Express your views, debate, and be heard with those in your area closest to the issue.
Leave a Comment
The right of self-defense is a corollary to the right to life; to deny one is to deny the other. The purpose of government is to insure our rights, not to infringe on them.
The fact is that governments should not be involved in permitting the carriage of weapons, either openly or concealed, by anyone.
Our constitution states that the right of the people to keep (possess) and bear (carry) arms shall not be infringed. Marbury v. Madison (1803) decided that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and that any law that contradicts the Constitution is null and void. "The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it; an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed ... An unconstitutional law is void." (16 American Jurisprudence 2d, Sec. 178)
In Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943) the Supreme Court stated that a constitutionally-protected right may not be licensed, nor a fee charged. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of those protected natural rights.
In Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, Alabama (1962) the Supreme Court decided that “If the state does convert a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.” (That means they can't punish you, folks!)
To paraphrase an oft-quoted movie line, "Permits? We don' need no steenking permits!"
Not much thought there? 38 states have a Shall Issue system that empowers people to protect themselves. All states bordering Cal. have such laws. Are Cal. residents somehow unworthy of being able to protect their loved ones?
As for open carry. Cal will probably never change that. It's unsafe to walk around with an empty gun, If challenged by some idiot who covets your gun, and has his own, you lose. Whereas, the crooks are on the run. It is quite likely in other states that they might encounter a permit holder with a gun to stop a crime, before it starts.
The only place for open carry, is to prevent being cited for exposing your gun accidentally. Massachusetts is a
place where a cop can give you a ticket ,and maybe pull your license, because your coat blows open.
I agree with much of this, except that I don't agree that unloaded open carry with ammo at the ready is a disadvantage to total disarmament.
I agree with much of this, except that I don't agree that unloaded open carry with ammo at the ready is a disadvantage to total disarmament.