Judge affirms San Diego County gun permit system

inShare ReprintPrint Email Font Resize Judge affirms San Diego County gun permit system The Associated Press Posted: 12/13/2010 07:14:04 PM PST Updated: 12/13/2010 08:48:20 PM PST

SAN DIEGO—San Diego County's system of issuing permits for carrying concealed weapons does not violate gun owners' constitutional rights, despite recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions protecting the right to keep guns at home, a judge has ruled.

U.S. District Judge Irma Gonzalez ruled against gun owners and a gun ownership group who had sued the county, arguing its permitting standards were invalidated by the two recent high court decisions.

The county maintained the Supreme Court's decision bestowed no right under the Second Amendment to carry a loaded concealed weapon in public.

Gonzalez said in her 17-page ruling, handed down Friday, that the county's permit system helps satisfy its legitimate goal of promoting public safety and reducing the rate of gun crime.

Under the county's permitting process, applicants seeking concealed weapons permits must prove that they are more likely than members of the general public to be placed in harm's way.

The case was closely watched by gun-control advocates and gun-owners-rights groups because it was one of the first suits to challenge limits on carrying concealed weapons since the Supreme Court decisions.

“..the county’s permit system helps satisfy its legitimate goal of promoting public safety and reducing the rate of gun crime.”

They should have to prove that. Of course they can’t.

Yes, they do have to prove it. Why? Because the Supreme Court over the years has set two, sometimes three standards for analyzing government regulation under the due process clause and equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. Most laws and regulations that do not concern a fundamental right are constitutional if rationally related to some legitimate governmental interest, even if the interest was not actually articulated or even considered by the legislative body. The fact that the law or regulation is less than perfect and does not actually achieve the intended goal, or the goal could have been achieved by means that are less restrictive or less burdensome, is irrelevant.

In contrast, laws and regulations that concern a fundamental right under the Constitution, such as political speech, assembly, the press, and religion, or classifications based upon race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, and to a lesser extent, gender, must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest that cannot be achieved by less restrictive means. In other words, there must be a real and provable connection between the compelling governmental interest or goal and the means for achieving that interest or goal, and even then, the means must go no further than what is necessary to achieve that goal or interest.

Now that the SCOTUS has declared that the right to bear arms is a fundamental individual right, laws and regulations that infringe upon that right must be narrowly tailored to actually achieve a compelling governmental interest that cannot be achieved by less restrictive means.

Thus, in the San Diego case, the government must actually prove that the law prohibiting CCW permits to all, but a select few will actually reduce gun crime and that the reduction of gun crime can not be achieved by less restrictive means.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.