Wednesday, June 28, 2017

What is the Supreme Court good for?


Supreme Court declines to hear challenge to concealed carry restrictions - Washington Times:
(June 26, 2017)
Second Amendment advocates stung by the Supreme Court’s decision not to take up a closely watched gun rights case vowed Monday to pursue litigation as long as it takes to get the justices to affirm the right to carry a firearm outside the home. The court opted Monday not to hear Peruta v. California, letting stand a ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld a California law requiring a gun owner to show “good cause” in order to get a permit to carry a concealed handgun in public.
I'm a bit conflicted, personally, about this issue.   Second Amendment aside, I am aware that criminals (and those with criminal intent) will carry a firearm any time, any place, and for whatever reason suits their purpose.

Why shouldn't law-abiding citizens have the same ability to do so, without facing harassment by Law Enforcement Officers?   Do Californians think that by denying Constitutional rights to ordinary people, they will eliminate the use of firearms by their {HUGE!} Criminal element?

Here is a Case Study, and I swear I am not making this up:

Joe Bfetznikcke (pronounced: "Brown") from down the block isn't the one who is robbing passers-by with a pistol.   He has a clean record; no arrests, and he mows the lawn in front of his suburban home every week, rain or shine.  He's a good citizen and a good neighbor.

He also mows the lawn of his next door neighbors: Scherputz (pronounced "Frank" who hasn't worked in 20 years but buys a case a beer every day and when the wind is right the air reeks of  chemical funes; and Judi (pronounced "Scheuddinskiavich") who has a lot of boy friends who only seem to visit her once a week.  Each.   She has no visible means of support, but drives a Mercedes.

Joe has other neighbors who are not quite as "socially aware", and who all have a criminal record; he wants to defend their families, but he's not "physical".  So he mows their lawns, too.
Joe's a schmuck.   But he's OUR SCHMUCK!

Joe works in one of those business park buildings in a computer development business, and he's a geek.  He lives on potato chips and ZAP! Cola, and couldn't fight himself out of a paper bag.

In fact, if a paper bag wanted to take his  (unsecured) parking spot at his place of employment, Joe would back out and park his 1997 Ford in the "NoseBleed" section of the parking lot.

He parks his car in the company parking lot before dawn, and leaves after dusk.   He is a hard worker, a good family man.

He is entirely defenseless, and the Bad Guys know this.  They have robbed and assaulted his co-workers regularly, and Joe is only thankful that he hasn't been targeted.  Yet.

But he can't get a permit to own and carry a firearm (even though he has taken all the 'right' courses, and he feels vulnerable).   Why?  Because he has "No Good cause " to be awarded a Concealed Handgun license.

 He has never been personally threatened, the police haven't arrested anyone for assaulting his co-workers (which doesn't mean they haven't been assaulted, robbed, beaten, battered, abused and raped) but it was not JOE who was the target.  Yet.

Joe would like to carry a gun.  He has bought a pistol, taken the classes, works out at the range AND the gym on a weekly basis, but since he has not received a specific threat, he can't legally carry a gun.

Despite several applications which Joe has submitted, the local Sheriff has not yet decided that Joe has "Good Cause" to carry a gun.  And since the sheriff is the sole arbiter of who does or does not "deserve" a license to carry, Joe is defenseless.

So what's Joe going to do?  Wait until he gets mugged?  Or should he break the local laws because he's pretty sure it's just a matter of time because he lives in a BAD NEIGHBORHOOD where crime is unstoppable by the police.

California is one of the "Hold Out" states which cleave to their ant-gun gods .... liberal assemblymen and other politicians who hate the idea that law-abiding citizens might legally carry firearms in protection of themselves, their families, their community and their property.

The sheriff in his county is a "May Issue" kind of guy, and he cannot imagine any reason why Joe might want to carry a gun.   That's his personal opinion.  Of course, the sheriff carries a gun, and he works in an office where everyone carries a gun .. including his sultry blond secretary, Schuerrienaughe. (Pronounced: "Jill"; she's Irish).

The court opted Monday not to hear Peruta v. California, letting stand a ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld a California law requiring a gun owner to show “good cause” in order to get a permit to carry a concealed handgun in public. The state law left the authority to decide what constitutes “good cause” up to local authorities such as sheriffs or police chiefs.

But the Supreme Court, which has the power to declare that a standard of responsibility which works for 'most' states might be permitted in 'all' states, is reluctant to dip its collective toes in the boiling pot of political acid which is the Gun Control/Gun Rights controversy.
 The state law left the authority to decide what constitutes “good cause” up to local authorities such as sheriffs or police chiefs. Gun owner Edward Peruta, of San Diego County, brought the case after he sought to carry concealed firearms for self-defense but was denied a concealed carry license in 2009 because he was unable to show good cause.
Yes I wiped myself thoroughly when I finished this parable.


Anonymous said...

California government marches to the beat of a different drum. Folks that don't like it can always move elsewhere.

Jerry The Geek said...

You know ... I'm getting tired of the snard comments. Yes, the point is well made that California has "Other Priorities" when it comes to Second Amwendment issues. And yes, I understand that the "Land of Fruits and Nuts" feels obliged to enact laws which reflect the priorities of their people: Well, perhaps not their people, but the people whom their people have elected to represent them.

Do you find this confusing? I do!

I DO realize tht "Folks that don't like that can always move elsewhere".

That's not a reasonable response.
Folks that do not like the way in which their state is abrogating their constitutional rights should NOT "move out". It's their state, and if they leave ... then they have quit fighting.

I want the people of California, those who are 2nd Amendment people, to stay right where they are and FIGHT~!

They not only fight for their own rights, but the rights of their friends and neighbors.

So when someone who isn't part of the problem suggests that the best solution is to take yourself out of the state?

I'm offended, that people who believe in the Constitution "In Theory" are not only NOT willing to join in the fight to defend the constitution, but are in fact encouraging the local folks who DO "have a dog in this fight" to just .. give up, and move somewhere else.

If this goes on, we'll be a small conclave of 2nd Amendment people and cut off from human collegiality.

Archer said...

Small extension of that thought: We'll be a small enclave of 2nd Amendment people, easily steamrolled by a federal Congress, 55 of whom were elected by the California that the gun community abandoned.

California may be an uphill battle, and the odds may heavily favor the antis, but the ground is too fertile, too high-value to just walk away without a fight.

Just my opinion, worth every penny you're paying for it.

Anonymous said...

Recall your U.S. history. This nation was founded and settled by movers. People that didn't like the way things were going where they lived, the Pilgrims, and moved someplace else; to the folks that didn't like life in the East/Mid-West, or wanted a better way of life and moved West. We are a nation of movers, and still are. Neither my wife, or myself, or most of our friends, live in the states we were born and raised in, or have any desire to move back. We have found a better place to live. This notion that if you were born and raised there, you should stay there, is a form of people control popular with dictatorial regimes.