The Los Angeles Times ran an article on the decision of the Ninth Circuit in Peruta v County of San Diego, by Maura Dolan and Tony Perry. While I have come to expect old media reporters to be ignorant about guns, the first sentence in the article makes me wonder about their reading comprehension about judicial matters as well:
"In a significant victory for gun owners, a divided federal appeals court Thursday struck down California rules that permit counties to restrict as they see fit the right to carry a concealed weapon in public."Uh.. no. The court did not strike down "California rules that permit counties to restrict as they see fit" . The court struck down the County of San Diego rules that require the showing of special needs outside of the mainstream in order to obtain a concealed carry permit. It is a very significant difference. In the first instance, the court would have ruled against the State of California. They did not. In the second instance, they ruled against the choices made in the County of San Diego. It makes a huge difference in the law, because it defines who is responsible to take action. In this case it is the counties, not the state.
They also say that the ruling will not go into effect for some time, pending appeals:
California's rules will remain in effect for the foreseeable future, pending appeals.That may be literally true, as no one can foresee the future. But it appears to be a bit misleading, as there are no indications yet that the decision will be appealed. It does not appear that the State of California has any standing. The decision does not require them to do anything, it is against the County of San Diego and the Sheriff of the County of San Diego. The Chairwoman of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Diego is quoted as saying that her initial reaction was positive:
Dianne Jacob, chairwoman of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, said her initial reaction was positive."I have no problem with law-abiding citizens carrying concealed weapons in the name of self-defense," Jacob said.The Sheriff, William D. Gore, is up for election in 2014, in a relatively conservative county. So who is going to appeal the decision, and why?
It is good that the LA Times is covering these important decisions, but it would be nice if they were a bit more precise.
The cynical part of my mind wonders if the LA Times is trying to muddy the waters in an attempt to justify an appeal of the ruling by the State of California.
©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch