SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — There is no evidence that crime goes up in places where concealed weapons permits are issued more freely, an attorney told a federal appeals court on Tuesday.
Paul Clement represents San Diego County residents who were denied a permit by the sheriff on the grounds that they had failed to show good cause beyond self-defense.
The self-defense standard should be sufficient, and asking for more violates the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, Clement told the 11-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The panel will decide the long-running court battle that could dramatically loosen restrictions on carrying concealed firearms in California.
“The one thing I don’t think it can be is that you only get to show good cause if you show you have a better reason for the firearm than your fellow citizen when it comes to self-defense,” Clement said.
California Solicitor General Edward DuMont said there was a long and rich tradition of restricting concealed weapons in cities and towns. “The 2nd Amendment does not confer a right to concealed carry of handguns, especially in cities and towns,” he said.
A smaller 9th Circuit panel sided with gun-rights advocates in a 2-1 decision last year, saying requiring applicants to show they were in immediate danger or otherwise had a “good cause” for a permit beyond self-defense was too restrictive.
California officials sought to intervene in the case after the San Diego sheriff declined to appeal. California generally prohibits people from carrying handguns in public without a concealed-weapons permit. To get the permit, state law requires applicants to show good moral character, have good cause and take a training course. It’s largely up to the state’s sheriffs and police chiefs to determine what constitutes “good cause.”
In San Diego, the sheriff required supporting documents such as restraining orders, according to court documents.
Judge Consuelo Maria Callahan questioned why the panel should allow the state to intervene in the case after it failed to do so earlier.
“No one seems to want to weigh in on these political issues as it were,” she said. “Why isn’t it too late?”
DuMont said the case has broad implications for the entire state that didn’t seem to be at stake when the case was being considered by a lower court.
California officials say loosening concealed weapons permitting standards and allowing more people to carry guns threatens law enforcement officials and endangers the public.
But Clement said there was no evidence that the “sky fell” and crime went up in counties such as Fresno and Sacramento that have more permissive “good cause” standards.
Other federal appellate courts have upheld discretionary permitting policies for concealed weapons such as those used by the Yolo and San Diego County sheriffs, and the 11-judge panel is likely to do the same, said Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. But the U.S. Supreme Court has not taken up the issue.
“This is a big question that people have been asking, ‘Can you limit people’s rights to have guns on the street?’ ” he said.
