The phenomenon cuts both for and against the prevailing party platforms on the political Left and Right. “The increase in handgun sales coincides with a dip in gun-related crimes,” for example, as the San Francisco Chronicle reported, lending support to conservatives’ insistence that most gun owners have no interest in breaking the law and no greater inclination toward violence. “The number of aggravated assaults in California involving a firearm dropped from more than 23,000 in 2005 to less than 16,000 last year,” the paper added. “The number of gun-related murders fell from 1,845 to 1,169 over the same time period.”

Growing unease

On the other hand, the statistics also reinforce the liberal contention that even very strict controls on guns can leave the Second Amendment intact, preserving citizens’ sport shooting and self-defense interests. In a further irony, however, the data indicates that robust gun sales have been boosted by a widespread perception among current gun owners that access to weaponry is being progressively sealed off.  “While more handguns are being sold in California, it doesn’t necessarily mean there are more gun owners. Some researchers have found the number of American households that own a firearm is at a 40-year low, even though transactions are climbing. This suggests a smaller group of people is collecting more weapons,” the Chronicle surmised.

The state’s 2014 ban on openly carrying unloaded guns, going into effect at the beginning of 2016, was “not expected to slow the growth in gun sales,” as SFist noted. Other new rules taking effect on the first of the year required that “pellet, BB, and airsoft guns must be brightly colored, to help distinguish them,” and that “concealed carry permit holders will no longer be allowed to bring their weapons onto school grounds or college campuses,” as the Christian Science Monitor reported.

But another impending law has raised the ire of a relatively broad group of activists and interest groups. January 1 triggers legislation, written and passed in the aftermath of the Isla Vista shooting, that “gives the police or family members the option to petition the courts to seize the guns and ammunition of someone they think poses a threat,” as the Guardian observed — “the first law of its kind in the country.”

Diminishing returns?

But, the paper noted, this so-called gun violence restraining order “has raised concerns from lawmakers and pro-gun groups about civil liberties and questions about how effective it will really be.” The now-customary wave of litigation set to emerge from the uncertain legal landscape was expected to refine the law’s implications, which legislators in Sacramento haggled over on the way to passage. “It will become clearer after petitions begin to flow through the California courts what kind of evidence, minimally, could result in the issuance of a temporary firearms restraining order,” according to the Guardian.

Other new restrictions on guns proposed this election season have raised further questions. While Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom has begun campaigning on a policy that “would prohibit their possession and require anyone who has them to sell to a licensed firearm dealer, transfer them out of state or relinquish them to law enforcement for disposal,” as the Sacramento Bee reported, Gov. Jerry Brown has instead played up the limits of California restrictions that aren’t mirrored or reinforced by neighboring states and the federal government. “We have among the strictest gun control regulations in the country, and it doesn’t do us that much good if other states and the federal government is basically passive in this effort to keep guns out of the wrong hands,” Brown told CNN, according to the Bee.

Wednesday afternoon, before much was known about the attacks or the motives of the shooters, Newsom had this to say to the Los Angeles Times: “What more evidence do you need that we need to step it up as it relates to gun safety in this state? It is just unacceptable what is going on in this country. And California needs to lead the way. … Today’s tragedy just reinforces the imperative to not wait around for Congress to do their job, but for this state to do its job. And giving the voters the opportunity to do that directly is something that I think is important because the NRA, even in a Democratic state, has intimidated politicians in Sacramento.”

Newsom and fellow gun-control advocates need 365,880 valid signatures to gain a spot on the November ballot. The San Jose Mercury-News has details on his proposal:

California already has some of the nation’s toughest gun laws, including a 10-day waiting period for all firearm purchases, an assault weapons ban, and a ban on making and selling magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

 

The state enacted its assault weapons ban in 1989 and expanded it 10 years later. But those who already owned the banned guns and magazines were allowed to register and keep them.

 

Newsom’s measure would require owners to turn the outlawed magazines into police for destruction, sell them to a licensed firearms dealer or move them out of the state — just as San Francisco supervisors and Sunnyvale voters chose to require in 2013. New York, New Jersey, Hawaii and the District of Columbia also have such laws. …

 

Newsom’s measure also would require licensing of ammunition sellers and instantaneous point-of-sale background checks for all ammunition purchases to weed out those convicted of a felony or a violent misdemeanor, those with restraining orders against them or those declared dangerously mentally ill.

 

No other state requires background checks for ammunition purchases.

 

The measure would also require firearm owners to notify law enforcement if their firearm has been lost or stolen. Eleven states and the city of Sacramento already require this, but Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed bills to do just that in 2012 and 2013.

Measure could be launching point of 2018 gubernatorial bid

The November 2016 ballot is likely to be packed with measures. The signature threshold is much lower than normal because it is dictated by turnout in the last general election, and the November 2014 vote saw anemic turnout. Newsom’s measure will be fighting for attention with marijuana legalization proposals and other high-profile issues. He is expected to use his push for the measure as essentially the starting point of his campaign to be elected governor in 2018.

The gun-control measure is likely to attract millions of dollars in critical ads from national groups that back firearms rights. One expert told the Mercury-News that some of the specifics in Newsom’s plan could galvanize opposition:

“The large-capacity magazine ban is going to stimulate a lot of opposition; that’s going to hit a lot of ordinary gun owners where it hurts” — including some who might be open-minded to other kinds of gun control, said Adam Winkler, a UCLA law professor and author of 2011’s “Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America.”

 

“It plays into the hands of gun-rights proponents who are always warning that the government is going to come take your guns,” Winkler said.

For a good overview of California’s current gun-control laws, go here.

Twin ordinances

“The court on Monday let stand court rulings in favor of a city measure that requires handgun owners to secure weapons in their homes by storing them in a locker, keeping them on their bodies or applying trigger locks,” the Associated Press reported. “A second ordinance bans the sale of ammunition that expands on impact, has ‘no sporting purpose’ and is commonly referred to as hollow-point bullets.” The first ordinance passed in 2007; the second, in 1994.

The NRA and gun rights advocates had expected that the court’s 2008 decision in the District of Columbia v. Heller gave them a strong chance at overcoming the regulations. “Gun owners challenged both ordinances after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that the Constitution guarantees the right to possess guns at home for self-defense, then ruled in 2010 that state and local laws that substantially burdened that right were invalid,” observed the San Francisco Chronicle. “Gun groups are also relying on those rulings to challenge California’s licensing requirements for concealed weapons, and ordinances in San Francisco and Sunnyvale that ban the possession of high-capacity gun magazines.”

Failure on appeal

As Bloomberg reported, plaintiffs were convinced “that the San Francisco law was similar to the Washington, D.C., trigger-lock requirement invalidated in the high court’s 2008 decision.” But the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal ruled against them, teeing up a showdown at the Supreme Court. “The Ninth Circuit Court held that the city had a legitimate purpose in applying laws that reduce the danger of guns,” Al Jazeera America recounted, “and that while it did burden the rights of gun owners, it didn’t burden them so much they couldn’t exercise the rights to self-defense enshrined in the Second Amendment.”

“‘The record contains ample evidence that storing handguns in a locked container reduces the risk of both accidental and intentional handgun-related deaths, including suicide,’ Circuit Judge Sandra S. Ikuta wrote in the court’s opinion in March of last year.”

Among Supreme Court Justices, however, only Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas signaled their willingness to take the case.

“In a six-page dissent, Thomas, joined by Scalia wrote that the San Francisco gun laws are ‘in serious tension with Heller‘ and that the prior court rulings had ‘failed to protect’ the Second Amendment,” National Public Radio noted. “San Francisco’s law allows residents to use their handguns for the purpose of self-defense, but it prohibits them from keeping those handguns operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense when not carried on the person,” according to Justice Thomas.

Mixed messages

Although some legal experts immediately noted that the court’s decision raised questions about just how much protection the Second Amendment now could afford, others noted the court’s recent decision to side with the NRA in a different case.

Just last month, the court drew acclaim from the NRA for its unanimous ruling that convicted felons could sell firearms confiscated by law enforcement.

“The decision came in response to a case involving former U.S. Border Patrol agent Tony Henderson,” Western Journalism reported, “whose 19 guns were confiscated by the FBI upon his arrest on drug charges.”

“Following his guilty plea, Henderson was a felon prohibited from possessing firearms; however, he did not want to simply lose the roughly $3,500 his gun collection was worth. He petitioned a lower court in an effort to allow a third party to take possession of the guns and attempt to sell them on his behalf. That effort was unsuccessful at every stage of appeal up to the Supreme Court level.”

Led by the Firearms Policy Coalition, gun groups say the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals erred in its decision to uphold San Francisco’s safe-storage law.

Under the ordinance implemented in 2007, the city “requires all residents who keep handguns in their homes for self-defense to stow them away in a lock box or disable them with a trigger lock whenever they are not physically carrying them on their persons.”

The groups referenced the 2007 case before the U.S. Supreme Court, District of Columbia vs. Heller, which upheld an individual right to “keep and bear arms” in the Second Amendment.

“The court should grant certiorari to reaffirm key principles concerning the scope and substance of the Second Amendment,” the groups wrote in their amicus brief. “Many lower courts have taken great pains to avoid the consequences of these decisions — defying a fundamental constitutional limitation this court made explicit in Heller. … At the forefront of this resistance is the lower courts’ refusal to follow this court’s command, made in Heller and reiterated in McDonald, that Second Amendment claims are not to be judged by unrestrained judicial interest balancing.”

Gun groups point to Heller decision

Last March, a unanimous three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the local restrictions on gun ownership, finding that gun storage mandates save lives.

“The record contains ample evidence that storing handguns in a locked container reduces the risk of both accidental and intentional handgun-related deaths, including suicide,” Judge Sandra Ikuta wrote in the ruling for the panel. She added that gun safes “may be readily accessed in case of an emergency.”

Second Amendment groups have focused their arguments on the legal precedents, arguing that San Francisco’s regulations contradict the Heller decision, as well as McDonald vs. Chicago in 2009, which held the Second Amendment also applied to state laws.

“The Ninth Circuit’s lamentable decision in Jackson shows why it is the most overturned circuit court in the nation,” said Firearms Policy Coalition President Brandon Combs, one of the state’s leading gun rights activists. “The Supreme Court should take up this case not only to correct a clear wrong, but to stem the tide of judicial resistance in recognizing the right to keep and bear arms as fundamental Constitutional rights.”

He added, “The Second Amendment doesn’t protect second-class rights, and it’s time for courts to take the enumerated right to keep and bear arms at least as seriously as they do unenumerated rights like abortion.”

Other gun groups that have joined the Firearms Policy Coalition in filing the friend-of-the-court brief include the Second Amendment Foundation, the Calguns Foundation, Firearms Policy Foundation and California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees.

San Francisco City Attorney has “faith in the judiciary”

Six San Francisco residents, with the help of the National Rifle Association and the San Francisco Veteran Police Officers Association, first challenged the safe storage law in 2009. The case underscores the lengthy process of seeing gun-control restrictions ultimately become established law.  Long after the press conferences and publicity stunts, government attorneys struggle to defend the restrictions.

“I have complete faith in the judiciary to affirm our position that San Francisco’s gun safety laws protect the public in a manner that’s both reasonable and constitutional,” San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said in a 2013 press release on the case. “San Francisco has been a top target of the NRA for many years, and I’m proud of the efforts we’ve made to aggressively battle these legal challenges, and protect sensible gun laws that can save lives.”

As CalWatchdog.com has previously noted, the nation’s leading Second Amendment advocacy groups have begun to shift their efforts from the California Legislature to the courthouse. Since 2009, The Calguns Foundation has found great success in its legal challenges, which have targeted the implementation of concealed weapon permits and mandatory waiting periods.

A copy of the brief in the case of Espanola Jackson, et al. vs. City and County of San Francisco, et al., can be viewed at the Firearms Policy Coalition’s website.

Across most of the rest of America, even the most liberal Democrats have thrown in the towel on harassing gun owners. Part of it is gun-control isn’t popular with voters. And part is the overwhelming evidence of “More Guns, Less Crime,” to cite the title of John Lott’s book. When law-abiding private citizens are armed, criminals are more likely to back off, fearing getting shot.

Fortunately, our Second Amendment “right to keep and bear arms” has been strongly enforced by the federal courts, even the liberal 9th Circuit. The L.A. Times reported:

Relaxed rules for carrying concealed guns in public may not be challenged by California state officials or advocacy groups, a federal appeals panel decided Wednesday.

The decision was another victory for gun rights advocates, but it was not likely to be the last word. The state has the right to appeal Wednesday’s order and legal analysts expect the state to do so. There is another pending gun case involving the right to carry concealed weapons in California and a ruling in that case could resolve the debate.

In its 2-1 ruling Wednesday, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied an attempt by Atty. Gen. Kamala D. Harris, a gun control group and law enforcement associations to intervene in a case that struck down San Diego County’s policy of tightly restricting the carrying of concealed guns.

Why is Harris wasting my tax dollars attacking my rights, when she should be prosecuting killers, robbers and rapists? Is her budget so overflowing with millions and millions of extra dollars from generous taxpayers that she can blow our money on this?

On Monday, four California gun dealers filed a federal lawsuit challenging a nearly century-old law that bans the display of handguns in store advertisements.

Under state law, it’s perfectly legal for a gun-control supporter to use images of handguns in a protest outside of a gun store. But if a gun store were to put the same sign in its store window, it would be a violation of state law.

States California Civil Code § 26820, which was first enacted in 1923:

“No handgun or imitation handgun, or placard advertising the sale or other transfer thereof, shall be displayed in any part of the premises where it can readily be seen from the outside.”

This isn’t a case of hypothetical free speech scenarios. Earlier this year, a Central Valley gun dealer was cited by the California Department of Justice for breaking the law by displaying a handgun in its window. Tracy Rifle and Pistol, the San Joaquin County firearm retailer that was cited by the Department of Justice in September, points out the obvious content-based speech restriction.

“I run one of the most heavily regulated and inspected businesses in existence, but it’s still illegal for me to show customers that I sell handguns until after they walk in the door,” said Michael Baryla, the owner of Tracy Rifle and Pistol. “That’s about as silly a law as you could imagine, even here in California.”

Gun stores speak out

One Fresno gun dealer and plaintiff in the case, PRK Arms, told KMPH Fox 26 News’ Erika Cervantes that the lack of proper signage can be confusing for customers.

“We actually get quite a few calls throughout the week from people asking if we sell handguns,” Elijah Smedley, the store’s general manager, told KMPH. “If you look around, there’s plenty of them here. The product itself is not illegal in any way, so why should advertising be illegal?”

Smedley pointed out the obvious double standard.

“You can advertise for just about anything else that you sell,” he said. “There’s grow shops, there’s dirty magazine stores, there’s all kinds of things out there that you can advertise for the exact item you’re selling. Yet, for some reason, handguns are taboo.”

First Amendment scholars join case

Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor who is considered one of the country’s foremost experts on the First Amendment, has joined the case on behalf of the plaintiffs.

“The government generally may not ban advertising of lawful products — indeed, of constitutionally protected products — on the grounds that such advertising is offensive, or stimulates consumer interest in such products,” Volokh explained on his legal blog at the Washington Post.

In addition to a double standard for gun owners and gun control advocates, there’s a double standard for weapons. In California, it’s legal for gun dealers to display images of shotguns and rifles on their premises, but illegal to display an image of a handgun. The multiple content-based restriction has helped the gun dealers enlist other constitutional experts in the case, including top-notch attorneys Bradley Benbrook and Stephen Duvernay.

“The First Amendment prevents the government from telling businesses it disfavors that they can’t engage in truthful advertising,” said Bradley Benbrook, lead counsel for the plaintiffs. “This case follows a long line of Supreme Court cases protecting such disfavored businesses from that type of censorship.”

A spokesman for Attorney General Kamala Harris, the lead defendant in the case, declined to comment about it to CalWatchdog.com.

State’s clever gun rights advocates target vulnerable laws

The lawsuit is only the latest effort in a series of savvy moves by the state’s leading Second Amendment advocates. Unable to slow the endless series of new gun-control bills proposed each legislative session, the California Association of Federal Firearm Licensees, Calguns Foundation and the Second Amendment Foundation have turned to lawsuits and public-records request to overturn laws. And when the mainstream media ignore their achievements, CA-FFL shares its victories directly with its nearly 40,000 Facebook fans.

In August, a federal judge ruled that California’s 10-day waiting period on gun sales violated the Second Amendment rights of certain groups of gun owners. The plaintiffs in the case were represented by Calguns Foundation and Second Amendment Foundation.

The group has also exploited the state’s public records law to obtain information about the uneven administration of conceal-carry permits. In 2011, Calguns Foundation believed then-San Francisco Sheriff Michael Hennessey was failing to comply with California’s conceal-carry laws. Under state law, all agencies that have the authority to issue firearm permits must create and publish a written policy on the process. Thanks to a public records request, the group proved that the sheriff had selectively enforced the law and awarded permits to politically-connected applicants.

San Francisco wasn’t an isolated case, but a part of Calguns’ program to enforce compliance with the law. A similar 2010 request filed by Calguns with the Ventura County sheriff’s office was denied. Calguns was forced to file a lawsuit, which it won.

Whenever it can, California’s gun-rights advocates are looking to form broad-based political coalitions.

“Since we started our Carry License Initiative, Calguns Foundation has had the great pleasure of supporting and, where possible, collaborating with fantastic open government groups like the First Amendment Coalition and CalAware on matters relating to public records and meetings,” said Brandon Combs, one of the masterminds behind the effective political strategy.

A copy of the complaint can be viewed here.

Despite a reputation for exceptionally strict gun measures, the regulatory landscape has become a mixed bag. Advocates of tighter restrictions and advocates of looser ones have won some key battles and lost others — with the outcome of still other clashes undetermined.

A new Second Amendment struggle

Late last month, for instance, a judge ruled against California’s mandatory 10-day waiting period for gun sales, which extended to prior and licensed owners. U.S. District Judge Anthony W. Ishii, a Bill Clinton appointee, held in Silvester v. Harris that the waiting period, codified in sections 26815(a) and 27540(a) of the California Penal Code, unconstitutionally burdened the gun rights of those owners. “He noted that all firearms purchasers, including second- and third-time buyers, must pass a state background check of their criminal and mental-health records, but said it was unreasonable to make gun owners wait the full 10 days to acquire another weapon,” reported the San Francisco Chronicle.

This holding was narrow. The plaintiffs did not argue that California’s rigorous background check system was unconstitutional. Rather, they simply contended that the 10-day waiting period was “arbitrary and/or substantially overbroad,” as Eugene Volokh summarized the case.

Nevertheless, the ruling’s potential impact on California’s myriad other gun control regulations will very likely send Silvester v. Harris to higher courts on appeal. And against the backdrop of the other closely-fought gun measures at stake in California, its significance has been heightened.

A flurry of activity in Sacramento

Controversy has intensified, for instance, around AB1014, a bill designed to secure “gun restraining orders” against individuals deemed dangerous by a judge acting on a petition by a gun possessor’s family member or by law enforcement. The bill was authored in the wake of the Isla Vista shooting by Assembly members Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, and Das Williams, D-Santa Barbara. Support for the legislation was strong, with many in Sacramento favoring both the policy and the optics of a visible reaction to the shooting.

AB1014 passed easily. But critics have begun to pressure Gov. Jerry Brown, who has previously blocked some increased gun controls, for another veto. Assemblyman Tom Donnelly, R-Twin Peaks, warned that the bill would confer sweeping power on “virtual strangers,” rather than just the family members of disturbed persons.

But in a bigger indication of the alarm surrounding the restraining order scheme, the Liberal Gun Owners Association recently voiced its opposition to Gov. Brown. In a letter to the governor, association president Eric Wooten insisted that AB1014 would discourage gun owners from seeking mental health care, while significantly burdening a justice system already struggling to handle domestic violence cases. “I firmly believe if you consider the larger ramifications of AB1014 you will veto this dangerous bill,” he wrote.

At the same time, however, 69 California mayors — including the mayors of Los Angeles, Sacramento and San Francisco — wrote Brown expressing their strong support for the bill. “The standards for issuing a GVRO in AB1014 are appropriately rigorous to ensure that gun rights are not violated,” the mayors wrote, arguing that courts will carefully consider whether the person has a dangerous background. “The bill requires courts to consider whether the person has been violent or made threats of violence, whether they have violated other protective orders, and whether they have had criminal convictions. And the bill advises courts to consider past unlawful use of guns, prior arrests, and other evidence of an increased risk of violence.”

Kevin de Leon takes center stage

Another piece of gun control legislation on Gov. Brown’s desk promises even more sweeping restrictions. SB808, which would crack down on 3D-printed firearms, is authored by state Sen. Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, the Senate’s incoming President Pro Tem. Guns.com reports that SB808 “would require a state Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms background check and authorization before assembling a firearm in the home of a state resident,” as well as requiring in-home gunmakers to prove the activity would not violate city or county ordinances. Additionally, the bill would require unlicensed in-home gunmakers to mark their firearms with serial numbers kept on file by the Department of Justice.

SB808 has accumulated special importance for de Leon, whose push for multiple gun control measures encountered stiff opposition this year. In a sign of just how fluid the regulatory situation has become in Sacramento, Brown rebuffed de Leon’s recent attempt to require permitting and background checks for any buyer of bullets, and the Assembly sank the legislation he crafted in the hopes of imposing new regulations on the sale of ammunition.

Yet in California, Democrats have a similar ritual — and it draws not fire but praise from many of the state’s editorial pages. It’s the Legislature’s habit of passing tough gun control rules that are obviously going to be tossed by federal courts for cramping the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms.

Why do I say “obviously going to be tossed”? Because while it seems to have failed to sink in with most of the media, America is in a new era when it comes to gun rights. After decades of  justices’ wobbling, bobbing and weaving, the U.S. Supreme Court now has a majority that has firmly and consistently held that the Second Amendment isn’t part of a “living document.” It means what it says.

Guns aren’t just guaranteed to militia members

The turning point came at term’s end in June 2008:

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday embraced the long-disputed view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own a gun for personal use, ruling 5 to 4 that there is a constitutional right to keep a loaded handgun at home for self-defense.

The landmark ruling overturned the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns, the strictest gun-control law in the country, and appeared certain to usher in a fresh round of litigation over gun rights throughout the country. The court rejected the view that the Second Amendment’s “right of the people to keep and bear arms” applied to gun ownership only in connection with service in the “well regulated militia” to which the amendment refers.

Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion, his most important in his 22 years on the court, said the justices were “aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country” and “take seriously” the arguments in favor of prohibiting handgun ownership. “But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table,” he said, adding: “It is not the role of this court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”

Justice Scalia’s opinion was signed by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito Jr.

That’s from The New York Times. This most important ruling of Scalia’s career has swung like a wrecking ball ever since, helping along by a 2010 Supreme Court ruling declaring that the Second Amendment applies to local and state laws, not just federal law.

State law struck down by … 9th circuit!?!

This piece from last week in the Los Angeles Times showing a surge in concealed-carry permits reflects the new strength in Second Amendment enforcement. A state law permitting counties to set their own restrictions on such permits was struck down in February by … drumroll, please … no less a liberal pillar than the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Then there is this development last week:

In another setback for California’s tough gun-control laws, a federal judge ruled Monday that the state can’t require gun buyers to wait 10 days to pick up their newly purchased weapon if they already own a gun or have a license to possess a handgun.

U.S. District Judge Anthony Ishii of Fresno said the 10-day wait for current gun owners is a restriction on constitutional rights that isn’t justified by safety concerns. He noted that all firearms purchasers, including second- and third-time buyers, must pass a state background check of their criminal and mental-health records, but said it was unreasonable to make gun owners wait the full 10 days to acquire another weapon.

That’s from the San Francisco Chronicle.

Observation about Dems holds for media

But as Bee columnist Dan Walters recently pointed out, there are still more weak laws this year coming out of a Legislature whose Democrats see guns as no less than a “secular sin.”

Dan could have noted that largely holds true for the California media as well. In 2004, New York Times ombudsman Daniel Okrent wrote a powerful essay about gun owners being among  “the groups The Times treats as strange objects to be examined on a laboratory slide.” The CA media offer the same incredulity about anyone who believes in the Scalia interpretation of the Second Amendment — in my personal experience, incredulity tipped with disdain.

Good people, you know, abhor guns! They just do! Or they’re not good.

This month, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up the issue. On appeal was a New Jersey case, Drake v. Jerejian, about a state law requiring a “justifiable need” to obtain a gun permit.

New Jersey’s “justifiable need” standard was narrow and strict. It required would-be buyers to prove they faced “specific threats or previous attacks” that demonstrated a “special danger” to their lives “that cannot be avoided by other means.”

But rather than affirming or striking down the law, the Supreme Court stayed away from the case — without commenting as to why.

Previous rulings still stand. In District of Columbia v. Heller, decided in 2008, the justices affirmed a constitutional right to purchase arms for personal use, including self-defense in the home. In McDonald v. Chicago, decided two years later, the Court also affirmed that this right applied equally to gun laws adopted by state and federal governments.

CA confusion

Since then, however, lower courts have been forced to consider what kinds of regulations pass the Heller test — and which don’t. As a result, gun law in California has reached a standoff.

California’s legal confusion involves not only “concealed carry” laws, which allow someone to hide a gun on his person. They also concern “open carry” laws, in which a gun is displayed openly, so people can see it.

Three years ago, lawmakers passed Assembly Bill 144, which made it a misdemeanor to openly carry a firearm. Gov. Jerry Brown signed the bill.

After that, gun owners focused their interest on “concealed carry” permits. Under California law, county sheriffs determine how those permits are granted. In general, until now, urban county sheriffs have placed stiff limits on the permits, while more rural counties have been generous handing out the privilege.

In Peruta v. County of San Diego, however, in February the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals considered a lawsuit against San Diego County, which required applicants for a Concealed Carry Weapon license to demonstrate “good cause.” The court ruled that this CCW requirement violated the Second Amendment, essentially mandating concealed-carry permits for any law-abiding person after taking a gun-safety course.

The final outcome of the Peruta case is not entirely certain. On May 1, the 9th Circuit ordered the sheriff to clarify his status on appeal.

Conflict

If the 9th Circuit continues in its course, it sets up a conflict between two circuit courts: Back East, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the state regulations in the Drake case. But out here in California the 9th Circuit struck down San Diego County’s regulations.

It’s not constitutionally clear how those two rulings square with one another. Commonly, but not always, the Supreme Court acts to clarify clashing Circuit Court opinions.

But for now, California counties, activists and citizens are facing the rush for gun permits. In Orange County and surrounding areas, applications for concealed carry permits have surged. In the two months since the Peruta ruling, the New York Times reported, some 4,000 residents have applied. That’s more than eight times the typical annual figure.

The Times noted California Attorney General Kamala Harris told the court she sees the ruling as a threat to public safety. In the absence of higher court action, however, Harris is largely limited to talk.

Moreover, Harris is running for re-election this year. According to her campaign website, controlling guns is part of her strategy of combating gangs. It also appeals to the liberal “base” that forms the core of her financial and political support.

She also is a likely candidate for governor in 2018, when term limits would force Gov. Jerry Brown to retire if he’s re-elected in 2014. Anti-gun constituencies are crucial to any Democratic candidate for governor.

Meanwhile, a 2012 report from the Congressional Research Office indicated that, from 1994 to 2009, Americans bought more than 100 million new firearms — and gun-related murder rates dropped nearly in half.

Widening impact

The Peruta ruling is already influencing lawmakers elsewhere. The Senate in the territory of Guam, for instance, recently passed a bill requiring police to grant concealed-carry permits to qualified applicants. That takes away the Guam Police Department’s ability to withhold permits, as it often has in the past.

Although Guam is far afield from the mainland United States, the Peruta ruling ensures that Second Amendment advocates have the legislative momentum, even where anti-gun groups are strong. At least for now.

The U.S. Consulate in Tijuana wrote:

“Don’t bring firearms or ammunition across the border into Mexico.

“Don’t carry a knife, even a small pocketknife, on your person in Mexico.

“You may become one of dozens of U.S. Citizens who are arrested each month for unintentionally violating Mexico’s strict weapons laws.”

But Mexico’s gun laws are starting to loosen. The NY Daily News just reported:

“Vigilantes were give assault weapons and new blue uniforms in western Mexico on Saturday, which was the deadline for militia members to join the police or face arrest.

“Self-defensive groups have been on the rise since last year, arming themselves for war against murderous drug cartels terrorizing entire towns and regions.

“Farmers formed long lines at a cattle ranch in Tepalcatepec to receive fresh blue uniforms and AR-15s as new members of regional police in the agriculturally rich state of Michoacan, where the vicious Knights Templar run a vast network of human and narcotics trafficking and widespread extortion of villagers and small businesses.”

It’s too bad the government is co-opting the vigilantes instead of just legalizing all guns. But the government’s action still is a concession that the way to reduce violence is to arm the victims of the criminal gangs.

Next step: A Mexican version of the U.S. Second Amendment, which guarantees:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”