Temecula Supervisor: Court's Pro-Gun Decision a Win for 'Second Amendment Rights'

Riverside County Board of Supervisors Chairman Jeff Stone is praising a federal court decision favoring gun owners who want to carry concealed handguns for personal defense, saying the ruling was a victory for "Second Amendment rights."

"I'm in shock," Stone told City News Service on Thursday when informed about the 2- 1 decision in Peruta v. County of San Diego. "I can't believe the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals made a ruling that actually upholds the Constitution."

Stone drew parallels between the court decision and a resolution he authored in November 2009 that called on Riverside  County Sheriff Stan Sniff to remove barriers law-abiding residents might otherwise face when applying for concealed firearms permits.

"My resolution stated simply that if a law-abiding person comes forward and says, 'I want to carry a gun for personal protection,' they should be granted that request," Stone said.

The Peruta case involved five San Diego County residents, led by Edward Peruta, who had sought or were considering obtaining permits to carry concealed pistols for protection. According to court papers, the plaintiffs' applications had either been rejected -- or they feared that, based on county criteria, they would be rejected.

The plaintiffs sued the county, alleging violations of their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. They specifically pointed to the statewide standard, applied in San Diego and the state's 57 other counties, of requiring gun permit applicants to demonstrate "good cause" in order to justify being granted a permit.

The plaintiffs argued that the criterion was arbitrary and opened the door to abridging "constitutionally protected conduct" rooted in the Second Amendment, according to the Ninth Circuit ruling.

The lawsuit made no headway in state court, resulting in the federal appeal.

Ninth Circuit Judges Diarmuid O'Scannlain and Consuelo Callahan ruled that the state's "good cause" provision was  inconsistent with previous rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court that recognized "the right to protect oneself against public and private violence, thus extending the right in some form to wherever a person could become exposed to ... violence."

"It brings to mind scenes such as a woman toting a small handgun in her purse as she walks through a dangerous neighborhood, or a night-shift worker carrying a handgun in his coat as he travels to and from his job site," the judges wrote.

In his dissenting opinion, Judge Sidney Thomas argued that handguns should be limited to individuals who can show a clearly legitimate need to carry one -- the foundation for the "good cause" standard.

"It limits the risk to public safety by reducing the number of guns in public circulation, but allows those who will most likely need to defend themselves in public to carry a handgun," Thomas stated.

Stone, a gun owner, told City News Service he won't be surprised if the California Attorney General's Office appeals the 2-1 federal decision invalidating the "good cause" limitation.

"In the meantime, I would hope that sheriffs across the state honor the Second Amendment rights of their citizens," Stone said. "With the state releasing felons into our communities to make room in prisons, that's all the more reason people should have the means to protect themselves."

Stone used the rationale behind his 2009 resolution as an example.

"I wrote that at the request of an Iraq War veteran," Stone said. "He went over there to defend this country, carrying a gun, and yet when he got back, he couldn't carry one here, even though he lived in a dangerous neighborhood. People have the right to protect themselves and their families."

– By Paul Young, City News Service.

Infidel Jones February 15, 2014 at 02:24 PM
I my sorry for my ignorant rants I apologize.
Infidel Jones February 15, 2014 at 02:25 PM
Oh yeah thank you Jeff Stone you have shown you care about Temecula, RIP Granite Construction
teri b February 15, 2014 at 02:28 PM
If facts make you insult those in possession of them, then you're the fools. Get some therapy soon before you hurt yourselves. The wars you were sent to fight (and it's the US military that is our real welfare state) had nothing whatever to do with our freedoms or security. They have contributed to further insecurity and curtailment of our liberty. And the guns that you also imagine make you free, make you less safe than the citizens of all other developed countries. I know you don't see things this way and I sincerely hope that you receive a college education soon. That's the very least our society owes you for your service. Honestly, the more you react with ad hominem attacks the more you reveal your lack of education and class.
Infidel Jones February 15, 2014 at 02:31 PM
I have no idea what I am trying to say I just have an outlet and am compelled to use it. Don't mind me!
teri b February 15, 2014 at 02:38 PM
Chris If guns made us safer, we wouldn't be so very unsafe compared with the rest of the world. Does this make sense to you? You want your wife to be safe and I want my husband and children to be safe. We know how to do this perfectly well. Get rid of the plague that guns represent to society!
The Peacekeeper February 15, 2014 at 02:40 PM
Teri, I've worked for 24 years in Los Angeles. Have seen thousands of victims of violent crimes. I would post my resume', but it's not the point. Although we have a very protective police force here in Temecula and Murrieta, even they cannot protect all citizens or prevent crime, as only a naive person would think. Therefore, this new ccw loosening of previous policy would allow you to protect yourself, family or property if compelled to do so with certain elements present. It's better to be prepared and never use it, than not be prepared without one.
The Peacekeeper February 15, 2014 at 02:41 PM
**proactive police force**
teri b February 15, 2014 at 04:16 PM
Obviously, one of you has decided to impersonate me and post that I have no idea what I'm trying to say, that I'm sorry for ranting etc...the last refuge of a scoundrel. It must be one of those really moral and upstanding citizens of our valley. A good christian, no doubt. You guys keep blowing your brains out and killing the defenseless with your guns. You are well beyond reason. The rest of us will keep trying to learn from other countries how to create the conditions for a safe and peaceful society. Any more teri b posts here will be from my secret admirer - who also goes as EricSin and Brenda. Nice one!
Misterschmidty February 15, 2014 at 04:24 PM
teri b, your posts tend to indicate that you think you are more highly educated than all the other who have posted comments on this news item. I’m sorry to say that education must have failed you terribly. Rather than addressing the subject of the standards of good cause for obtaining a CCW permit, you would rather attack those in uniform serving our country some of which are probably more highly educated than you. The subject is the reasonableness of the standards required to be eligible carry a firearm. It looks like this court looked at the reasonableness standard that counties in this state were using to determine good cause. In Riverside that standard is “Convincing evidence of a clear and present danger to life, or of great bodily harm to the applicant, his/her spouse, or dependent child, which cannot be adequately dealt with by existing law enforcement resources, and which danger cannot be reasonably avoided by alternative measures, and which danger would be significantly mitigated by the applicant's carrying of a concealed firearm.” As I read this, if someone is shooting at you and the police are not present you have good cause. That is really overreaching and simply intended to deny such permitting. Even with the standard for good cause being changed I suggest that you read the entire process that has to be fulfilled before a CCW permit is issued and see if you still think gun toting will become ramped. In any reply please keep it on this subject rather than voicing your objections to war.
The Peacekeeper February 15, 2014 at 04:31 PM
Misterschmidty, well stated. However Terri appears to be a know it all narcissist within our society. Obviously the more dangerous ones we've all come to witness. She's the type who you could lead outdoors and say, "now tell me, what color is the blue sky"? And she would argue that it's orange! Her poor husband has gotta be the most miserable tool in the shed. Smdh.
Aaron Powers February 15, 2014 at 04:38 PM
Yeah, no chit. I would hate to be Mr. b. LOL
Sam Adams February 15, 2014 at 05:05 PM
Spoken like a true liberal Teri. I disagree with your views which absolutely disgust and offend me and in return according to you I need therapy, have no class, and require an education. Its amazing! I serve my Country for over a decade, fall in love with it actually, get out and settle down to raise my family on those traditions and values that I fought for and belived in for years, and a bunch of people who have never been shot at, NEVER SERVED!!!!, want to get in my face and tell me I'm delusional and mentally ill. No actually, I'm just a really good shot with a rifle, am motivated and hard working, and am back for my piece of the pie! Get the hell out of my way! If you are so infatuated with the success that other countries have had creating a peaceful society then why don't you pack up all your college textbooks and move to one of them permanently???
Steve Newman February 15, 2014 at 05:25 PM
Aaron- does TeriB even have a "husband"? She once said she owned an insurance company, so I asked her which one- silence.
The Peacekeeper February 15, 2014 at 05:32 PM
Steve, it appears she's already taken the 5th on this subject while her poor old man is drinking a fifth just to tolerate her controlling jibberish!
Misterschmidty February 15, 2014 at 05:52 PM
Enough on teri b, definitely not worth the effort. What is the likelihood the California Attorney General will push the CCW decision so the US Supreme Court? I believe good cause in 41 other states is simply the desire for self defense so hopefully California will soon have reciprocity with them. Now if we could just get some of the other California limitations on handgun ownership decided there can be equality among some of the states like being able to purchase a good 9mm. compact.
The Peacekeeper February 15, 2014 at 06:01 PM
Absolutely,,MisterS! We know the ultra liberal Kamala will take it to the high court. However as you said, hopefully they won't even hear it as it would be frivolous at that point.
TVOR February 16, 2014 at 05:27 PM
We as citizens of the United States of America are supposed to have a constitutionally guaranteed right to defend ourselves. Unfortunately that right has been "infringed" many times by elected officials who make decisions not because they are in the best interest of the people but because they support a political agenda designed to increase the power of the ruling party. Not until we have leaders who truly support our constitution will we ever be able to rest assured the government does not pose a threat to its citizens. The threat may not be immediately visible but then neither is the temperature rise to a bunch of frogs in a cookpot.
SA February 17, 2014 at 12:43 PM
@Teri … Unless you are a vet please keep your slanted facts to yourself… I am a vet and I am a proud owner of many firearms … I believe that if the thugs of everyday life knew or suspected that “Joe Nobody” could be holding, the thug would think twice before committing a crime.
The Peacekeeper February 17, 2014 at 03:27 PM
SA, it appears Teri disengaged, or her old man finally stood up. Teri.....No shoes, No Shirt, No Dice!!!!!
Steve Newman February 17, 2014 at 04:50 PM
SA- well we won't miss the misinformed- maybe Kleiner can come over here and bring some of his liberal bs.
TVOR February 18, 2014 at 12:50 PM
I strongly support "shall issue" laws but I also support thorough background checks and licensing of individuals toown or posess firearms. We should do all we can to prevent those who should not have guns from getting them, but not at the expense of the rights of law abiding citizens.
The Peacekeeper February 18, 2014 at 01:07 PM
TVOR, I agree! The issuing authority must have fail safes in place. However, their must be a clear deviation from past practice vs the new guidance on issuing permits. You're correct though, not everybody should have carte blanche ccw privileges. Additionally, there should be legislation which creates more stricter penalties for abusers of their ccw permits, therefore creating harsher penalties for criminals with guns. The criminals will always get their guns, regardless of the law. There must be tougher sentences for that element!!!!
The Peacekeeper February 18, 2014 at 01:09 PM
**However, "there" must be a clear deviation**
Misterschmidty February 18, 2014 at 03:32 PM
This court decision is a long ways from change coming about. First it only decides the flaws in San Diego's good cause criteria. It is still up to each county sheriff or local police chief to change their criteria. Hopefully Jeff Stones views will put a little pressure on the Riverside County Sheriff to follow the court's view. I've also heard that San Diego may be asking for a full 9th Circuit review of the 3 panel Judge decision so it still has a long way to go. Support CalGuns an organization fighting this issue in all CA counties on our behalf.
Steve Newman February 18, 2014 at 03:43 PM
Misterschmidity- yes it will be a long haul but well worth it. As an additional restriction, there are some states that require the person issued the CCW carry liability insurance .
Misterschmidty February 18, 2014 at 10:54 PM
Check the Orange County Sheriff's web site. They just changed allowing CCW for self defense cause until something to the contrary happens with the San Diego Case. Great news so we will see how long it take Riverside County Sheriff to act.
The Peacekeeper February 18, 2014 at 11:04 PM
I'm sure the California AG will appeal this to the SCOTUS. If SCOTUS has stones it won't hear her appeal as various other states already have similar, if not the same statutes in place.
Steve Newman February 19, 2014 at 12:37 AM
Maybe SCOTUS will do the same thing they did with Prop 8- refuse to hear it and send it back to the lower court where the decision will stand.
Misterschmidty February 19, 2014 at 11:57 AM
If Jeff Stone appreciates the decision how come he is not putting pressure on the Sheriff to change the most oppressive standards in the state. Jeff Stone is in a far better position than the average citizen to do something about it. The Sheriff's office relies on the Board of Supervisors for their annual budget the Sheriff uses to defend the litigation against it's bad policies.
SA February 19, 2014 at 05:52 PM
@ Peacekeeper… Nice Spicoli reference …. Ha …


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »