California: More On Peruta

[Subdeacon Joe]

http://crpa.org/10595-2/

 

 

During oral arguments before the en banc panel, attorneys for both the California Department of Justice and Yolo County tried desperately to convince the Court to overturn the three-judge panel’s decision. Despite being forced to finally admit that the Second Amendment protects a right to bear arms in self-defense outside the home, to advance their agenda lawyers for both claimed that a CCW, what Peruta seeks, is not required to generally bear arms outside the home. They claimed that the restrictions on a CCW under existing laws only placed a “theoretical burden” on the right to carry, and that the “theoretical” burden was not “substantial” enough to be considered an unconstitutional infringement on the Second Amendment right of law-abiding Californians to bear arms.

Specifically, they argued that the unfettered discretion of a California Sheriff in determining whether a law-abiding citizen has sufficient “good cause” to lawfully carry a firearm is not a ban, but rather a mere “regulation.” This is because, they claimed, nothing prohibits individuals from openly carrying a loaded firearm on their private property, in their place of business, or in “unincorporated” areas of the county where it is not otherwise illegal to discharge a firearm. In other words, they represented to the Court that firearms can often be carried for self-defense without a CCW in many scenarios. But, anyone who understands the severe limits imposed by California law knows that is simply not the case.

The disingenuous arguments made by the attorney for Yolo County went even further. When asked by the Court if it was illegal to carry a firearm in public without a license from the Sheriff, the Yolo attorney claimed that:

“Only for walking up and down the public streets within city limits… your inability to carry is limited to less than 1% of the County.”

These remarks, as well as similar ones from counsel for the Department of Justice, are flat out false. The truth is that lawfully carrying a firearm in public is virtually impossible without a CCW except for in a few remote areas almost completely detached from public forums. What the government attorneys call a mere “regulation,” in practice, amounts to a total ban on the carrying of firearms in most “public places.”

 

 

 

Local laws are even more restrictive and create even more “prohibited areas,” because it is often the case that counties generally prohibit the discharge of a firearm while on certain county property. In Yolo County, for example, the county from which the attorney claimed a CCW is generally not needed to lawfully carry in most places, much of the county is a “prohibited area” where it is illegal to carry. Even though there are areas in the county where it is legal to discharge a firearm, they are described in such a confusing and scientific manner that it makes it all but impossible for average law-abiding citizens to know with any amount of certainty where their boundaries lie. For example, the Yolo County Code describes such areas using language like “…southerly along the extension of the center line of County Road 103 to its intersection with the South Fork of Putah Creek; thence along the center line of the South Fork of Putah Creek and Putah Creek to its intersection with County Road 98….” Yolo County, CA Code of Ordinances, Chapter 10, Sections 5-10.01 through 5-10.06.

As you can see, nothing short of a civil engineering degree and a high skill level of map-reading will help individuals avoid any legal trouble while attempting to carry a firearm without a license in the unincorporated portions of Yolo County. Combined with the state law restrictions on where it is lawful to discharge (and thus carry) a firearm, there is precious little area in Yolo County where one can carry without a CCW.

 

 

Clear as mud.