Skip to comments.CA:Invisible Lawyer Gives Bad Advice(San Diego Sheriff Gore)
Posted on 02/17/2014 2:09:55 PM PST by marktwain
Politics comes down to people. Some of them are real people, and some of them are invisible. This is true even in the case of sophisticated legal appeals to the 9th district court. Bill Gore is the Sheriff of San Diego County. He said he wanted to issue licenses so citizens could carry a concealed weapon in public. He really wanted to. That is what he told me. He said, sadly, that California law prevented him from granting those licenses. That is what his un-named lawyer told him. Ive had legal experts tell me otherwise, but it is hard to argue with an invisible lawyer. Invisible lawyers are like invisible rabbits that only Bill Gore can see. Now everything changed.
The story started long ago when Edward Paruta sued Sheriff Gore for the right to apply for a concealed carry license in San Diego County. The trial court said citizens didnt need concealed carry because the Sheriff knew best. The Appeals Court said citizens didnt need concealed carry because citizens were legally allowed to openly carry a firearm. Then the California legislature outlawed open carry. Enter the United States Courts for the Ninth Circuit. They said Sheriff Gores invisible legal adviser was wrong. Not only was he wrong, but he was unconstitutional. Defense of self and others outside the home was a sufficient cause to issue a carry license.
This should be great news for Sheriff Gore. Now he can issue carry licenses, which he said he wanted to do all along.
Im sure there are many phone calls going back and forth between San Francisco and Los Angeles law enforcement officials and politicians after this court ruling. Im sure Sheriff Gore is getting lots of advice. So is Irma Gonzalez, the District Court Judge who will reverse her earlier decision in Peruta V Gore.
We will see if the judge and sheriff will listen to the real people who vote.. or will they listen to the invisible people again.
Ive read conflicting reports on an appeal. I will wait until I receive confirmed news before I comment.
You, on the other hand, are welcome to comment.
marktwain .. you would be correct.
Appeal has been ruled on .. the issue was having to produce a “reason” for wanting a concealed carry. It had nothing to do with carrying in public.
Judge said, the law does not require a “reason” - because the 2nd Amendment does not state that a reason is required.
So Sheriff is lying .. he’s a new Sheriff, and I don’t like the guy .. he probably said that because he would like to be able to control the concealed carries in this county.
If you do some research on Bill Gore you will find that he has tended to embellish the truth his entire career in law enforcement, including his involvement in Ruby Ridge.
The ONLY per4son he has to answer to is the voter in his county.
Unless, of course, he chooses to not issue a permit for any reason except preclusion under Federal Law, then he'll answer to the courts and OTHER Federal Laws (Title 18 USC 242) which makes Law Enforcement, Judges and Prosecutors both Criminally and Civilly...personally...responsible for denying a Civil Right under color of law.
I am hoping that he is inundated with applications for CCW.
He must be smart enough to know that if he appeals or asks for an en banc hearing every one of these people will vote against him this November, when he is up for re-election.
OTOH, I think he might survive the election if he does not appeal and just starts issuing.
IANAL, but I think that if there is no appeal this is binding precedent everywhere in the 9th Circuit, but that no one else has standing to pursue an appeal.
The question is, will the 9th Circuit decide to have an en banc appeal? To do so, 14 of the 27 members of the court would have to vote for it. It is not at all clear if they will do so. Sheriff Gore and/or the County of San Diego have until the end of the month to ask for an en banc appeal, and the same process applies to them. Only about 1 of 20 appeals for an en banc ruling are granted.