San Diego County Gun Owners (SDCGO), a political action committee (PAC) advocating for Second Amendment rights in San Diego County, is taking credit for a mention of San Diego in a recent U.S. Supreme Court hearing on a potentially landmark Second Amendment case involved the civil rights of U.S. citizens to carry concealed weapons.<\/p>\n
According to Michael Schwartz, SDCGO executive director, the pro-Second Amendment PAC has played a substantive role in maintaining pressure on the San Diego County Sheriffs Office to continue the practice of issuing concealed weapon permits to law-abiding, trained citizens who qualify under California’s strict requirements for the CCW permit (CCW stands for concealed carry weapon).<\/p>\n
Schwartz said for several years, the Sheriff\u2019s Office routinely denied applications from qualified San Diego County residents for a concealed weapon permit. In 2017, the Sheriff\u2019s Office had agreed to about 1,100 CCWs. In contrast, the number today is more than 5,600.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe are proud and feel strongly that San Diego County Gun Owners deserves some credit for increasing the number of CCWs issued, which has made our community a safer place to live and raise our families,\u201d said Schwartz.<\/p>\n
In a Nov. 3 hearing, Supreme Court justices heard arguments over New York\u2019s proper-clause rule, which requires residents to prove a special need for self-protection before obtaining a concealed carry license. It\u2019s believed the Court\u2019s decision will have consequences for gun owners nationwide.<\/p>\n
In the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc., Inc. vs. Kevin Bruen, who currently serves as superintendent of New York State Police, attorney Paul Clement, representing the rifle and pistol plaintiffs group, mentioned San Diego as an example of a \u201cshall-issue\u201d jurisdiction. The shall-issue phrase refers to a government agency, including law enforcement, granting CCW permits to qualified applicants.<\/p>\n
Clement said San Diego is an example of a shall-issue jurisdiction that has increased the number of CCW permits issued without an increase in gun violence.<\/p>\n
Starting on page 36 of a 134-page transcript, Justice Elena Kagan notes that Chicago is \u201cthe world\u2019s worst city with respect to gun violence.\u201d Clement responded by saying, \u201cAnd nobody thinks that about Phoenix, and nobody thinks that about Houston, and nobody thinks that about Dallas, and nobody thinks that about San Diego, which even thought it\u2019s in a restricted state, is a shall-issue jurisdiction.\u201d<\/p>\n
Schwartz explained, \u201cJustice Kagan tried to tie Chicago gun violence from illegal guns to legal, shall-issue CCW permits. But, Clement artfully responded that other jurisdictions with a shall-issue CCW policy have not seen an increase in violence and he cites San Diego as an example.\u201d<\/p>\n
According to Schwartz, homicides are typically about 10 percent higher in states with restrictive CCW laws. He said crime rates in cities that allow CCW holders\u00a0are statistically lower than crime rates of non-CCW holders.<\/p>\n
\u201cDeaths and injuries from mass shootings fall dramatically after CCW rights policies are expanded,\u201d he said. \u201cTens of thousands of times per year around the country, armed civilians defend their lives using our most effective tool, a firearm.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe right to carry a firearm in public for self defense will not result in more violence. On the contrary, the risk of a confrontation is precisely why law-abiding citizens have a right to be armed for self-defense.\u201d<\/p>\n
In California, existing state law gives clear requirements for those seeking a CCW, said Schwartz.\u00a0Applicants are required to pass a criminal background check, complete a state-mandated curriculum on firearms safety and law, pay a fee and state a reason on the \u201cgood cause\u201d\u00a0portion of the permit application. Schwartz said the majority of California sheriffs accept \u201cself-defense\u201d or \u201cpersonal protection\u201d to fulfill the \u201cgood cause\u201d requirement.<\/p>\n
\u201cLaw-abiding people in San Diego deserve the ability to protect their lives and their dignity outside the home,\u201d said Schwartz. \u201cThe Second Amendment is not only about the right to bear arms, but about protection of yourself, your family, and your dignity.\u201d<\/p>\n
At the Supreme Court hearing, the justices, citing the right to bear arms in the Second Amendment, sounded ready to strike down the New York law that authorizes state or local officials to deny gun-permits to law-abiding residents. Justice asked questions about the wide degree of discretion New York\u2019s rules give law enforcement in granting the permits. Gun control advocates heard little to cheer about, it was widely reported.<\/p>\n
\u201cThink about people who work late at night in Manhattan,\u201d said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. \u201cIt might be somebody who cleans offices. It might be a doorman at an apartment. It might be a nurse or an orderly [or] somebody who washes dishes\u201d who is \u201cscared to death\u201d to head home. \u201cHow is it consistent with the core right to self-defense\u201d to deny that person the right to have a gun with them? he asked.<\/p>\n
Alito also said, \u201cDoes it mean that there is a right to self-defense for celebrities and state judges and retired police officers, but pretty much not for the kind of ordinary people who have a real, felt need to carry a gun to protect themselves?\u201d<\/p>\n
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh added that people may have a greater need to protect themselves with a gun in densely populated areas. \u201cHow many muggings take place in the forest?\u201d Roberts asked.<\/p>\n
Kavanaugh said the Second Amendment protects a right to have a gun for self-defense, which suggests the decision to be armed should rest with the gun owner, not a state or local licensing official. \u201cWhy isn\u2019t it good enough to say I live in a violent area and I want to be able to defend myself?\u201d Kavanaugh asked.<\/p>\n
Roberts and Kavanaugh also questioned whether the state could leave the question of whether people can exercise their Second Amendment rights to the discretion of individual licensing officers, with Kavanaugh saying that \u201cseems inconsistent\u201d with other constitutional rights, and that he doesn\u2019t \u201csee any real evidence\u201d of higher crime in places with less restrictive laws.<\/p>\n
According to Schwartz, \u201cA favorable ruling in support of the Second Amendment from the Supreme Court could have a direct effect in California and on many lower court decisions relating to concealed carry restrictions. In many jurisdictions around the country, it is practically impossible for an ordinary, law-abiding citizen to obtain a license to carry a handgun for self-defense.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe stakes could not be higher. If New York\u2019s law is struck down, the precedent will lead to overturning California\u2019s extreme gun control laws and ease restrictions and regulations on CCWs.\u201d<\/p>\n
The case began when Robert Nash and Brandon Koch, who live near Albany, N.Y., applied for a CCW, but were turned down by a county judge because they allegedly did not face any special or unique danger. They were, however, licensed to carry guns for hunting or target shooting. They sued, along with the New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., alleging the restrictions violated their rights under the Second Amendment to bear arms for self-defense.<\/p>\n
The U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing the New York that has been in place since 1913 and says that to carry a concealed handgun in public for self-defense, a personal apply for a license has to demonstrate proper cause, meaning an actual need to carry the weapon.<\/p>\n
The Biden administration is backing New York state. California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island all have laws similar to New York. A decision on the case is expected by summer 2022.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
San Diego County Gun Owners (SDCGO), a political action committee (PAC) advocating for Second Amendment rights in San Diego County, is taking credit for a mention of San Diego in a recent U.S. Supreme Court hearing on a potentially landmark Second Amendment case involved the civil rights of U.S. citizens to carry concealed weapons. According…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":7421,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7531","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-press-releases"],"yoast_head":"\n