Article says "A three-judge panel ruled on Feb. 13 that the county violated the Second Amendment by requiring individuals to show "good cause," such as a fear for their safety, when applying for a concealed weapons permit."

INSTEAD they should have ruled that applicant applying for permit must show proof that he/she is not a certified nut-job. Those are the only ones who want to walk around armed in public.

This 3-panel bench has made a huge mistake.

Hey Dave from Blackhawk; I would invite your attention to the 42 states in which concealed carry by law-abiding citizens is allowed, after a background check and appropriate training. The violent crime rate has dropped faster in "shall issue" states than "may issue" states like California, New Jersey, Maryland and New York. The Jury is still out on how "shall issue" works in Illinois which started the process on January 1st. Stay tuned.

Irv, I totally agree. "Gun free" zones are the most dangerous places for law-abiding citizens. But don't waste your time trying to convince liberals-they don't get logical reasoning.....

Tell that to the kid who was accidentally shot the other day. Danville posers and wannabes who prance around believing that they're going to be heroes any day now when they shoot the bad guy with their cool guns are truly pathetic.

Irv, if that's actually true, why did the NRA get their toadies in Congress to pass a law forbidding actual, impartial scientists from studying the effect of gun laws on crime, suicide, accidental shootings and use in crimes?

Dave, you are totally "logical." Also totally irrational. Your logic isn't based in the real world, it's based in your adolescent fantasy of shooting the bad guy. Here's a reality check: That will never happen. You may eat your gun, you may accidentally shoot yourself - you may even shoot a local businessman, a trick or treater or someone texting in a movie theater - but you'll never, ever be a hero. You'll never shoot a bad guy. Your fantasy will never come true.

Now go fondle your gun. It will make you feel better. Your gun won't talk back, or laugh at your immaturity. Guaranteed.

To Peter K; You are clueless. You're entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts!

Peter is a libTARD fool. Read the Constitution. Oh wait--a few big words in there for you. When Moscone got offed in 1978--Feinstein gun grabber saw nothing wrong with packing a conceiled herself. All animals are equal but sme more than others??

As one who has lived throughout virtually all corners of our great country, I continue to be befuddled about one aspect of this perpetual discussion.

Why is concealed carry vice open and displayed carry such a divisive issue? Seems to me that if you want to carry and do not feel secure in a "gun free zone(s)" then getting to open carry seems much more achievable then concealed carry particularly in a region such as ours.

If one spends anytime in the southwest, you gain an appreciation for a number of the territorial laws that are still on the books particularly regarding merchants and their customers. Anecdotally, the pegs at the front of the restaurant in some of the old, dusty AZ or NM towns where not just for checking your overcoat. The unique signage to concealed permit holders on every public entrance to contemporary malls throughout the region has its origins in these same laws.

Thus, my question again. Why not just place one's 'peacekeeper' in a side holster or scabbard such that any and all can either appreciate, admire or decide on their own cognizance to vacate the premise? Why the need to conceal?

Why are liberals so against another person's right to defend themselves? If you don't want to own or carry a firearm, that is your right, but it's not your right to inflict your decision on me. If I choose to carry a firearm it's solely for the purpose of defending myself, and possibly my family, not those around me.

I do understand the reasoning behind requiring a firearm to be concealed versus making it openly visible as it can make others nervous and uncomfortable.

It's a free country, but don't forget how your freedom is secured...

I guess that when my ex girlfriend drove her car into my car door, then when she backed off so I could get out, and I did and she revved her car as if to run me over, I could have pulled my concealed gun and shot her dead. Or the time I felt threatened by a car driver, I could have pulled along side to defend myself. Really what I do need is a gun(s) that is/are visible when I drive. And why not stop there. Let's all just carry visible holstered weapons. Imagine that, we will have reached the epitome of advanced civilized cultured living when we all get to carry guns. And since kids these days would be so vulnerable, why not give them a holstered gun when they get their first cell phone.

And who is to say that all citizens can't carry holstered guns around their homes. In fact, the hero fantasy so closely resembles the home invasion fear, so I am guessing you paranoid crazies probably already do that. Guns in holsters in homes.

Imagine spouse saying: Hey sweatheart, what are you carrying a gun around the house for, or are you just glad to see me? response: I am protecting us from a potential home invasion robber with my gun, and I am glad to see you... Just don't piss me off... my gun is loaded.

Your whole life would turn into thinking about guns. Where's my gun, is it loaded. I forgot my gun. What kind of gun do you have. Look at my gun, arent' I macho. Oooh Nice holster. Let me go walk around town and show off my locked and loaded gun. Hey kids... Here's my gun to assuage my paranoia. Do I need to bring my gun into Safeway? Do I need to bring my gun into a movie? to the mall? to the office? to my college?

Think of it this way, when everyone has a gun, everyone is a death threat, so if a crazy were to shoot someone and you didn't catch who the perpetrator was, then you would all pull your guns... then you have a melee of people shooting whoever.

Hey you gun crazies? You can have your paranoia? Perhaps we should create a state that is a testing ground. How about Nevada? or Arizona? Then you can live in your own fantasy world.

@Aubrey,

Your statement "the reasoning behind requiring a firearm to be concealed versus making it openly visible as it can make others nervous and uncomfortable" is exactly the point I hoped someone would provide.

Do some homework and you'll quickly realize that, certainly within this state, open carry except in certain unincorporated areas (i.e. thinly populated) requires a permit as would concealed carry. However, with many details removed, it would be generally expected that an open carry permit would be 'easier' to secure then a concealed one. Let's work with that as a premise for discussion. I simply challenge the need for concealed carry except where specific reason determines.

My stated point was not to preclude your right to indulge in the 2nd amendment. I tend to believe that if you can schlep it in on your back without assistance, more power to you. Rather, I just want to know when you and your ilk come into a public location where I or those of my ilk are for the moment. I will present to you that if you chose to enter your place of worship, your grocery store, your kid's little league game or even your favorite boutique around town with a firearm strapped to your leg - cowboy-style - you will induce the reaction, in friend and stranger, that you so eloquently articulated. Now why is that???

@JT - You've got some serious issues that I hope you're addressing because whatever meds you're employing aren't working...

@Conservator - My point is that if I choose to carry a firearm, it's for my personal protection and that is my business, period. No one needs to know and I don't need permission. It's not about making others uncomfortable, engendering a reaction, or some macho fantasy but rather personal protection as you're always the first responder when someone attacks you. Is that really so unreasonable?

Aubrey, I agree! But don't waste your time using logic w/ liberals-they aren't logical....conceal because it's your right and to keep the bad guys guessing .... If they're not sure if you're carrying, they'll go molest the unicorn-worshiping Obama lovers!

Cities are going to take sensible gun control measures .. its coming. Glad to see that Sunnyvale's ban on high capacity magazines was upheld.

I am keeping a score:
Humans 1; NRA & Gun nuts 0

The fascinating thing to me is the inability of the gun nuts to understand what is being said about them and their fantasies. They all talk to each other about how butch and macho they are, and how they're all about the Constitution and self-reliance, and when an adult says, "Slow down, Billy. You're not looking at the real world, you're living a fantasy" they get their panties in a wad like Dave and Aubrey.

People obsessed with a fantasy are unable to rationally assess the world around them. The simple fact that most people living in the Tri_Valley area significantly decrease the safety of themselves and their families by obtaining a gun, not increase it, and that normal people see them as ridiculous posers and fools is simply impossible for them to understand. In their cult, guns are macho. "Good guys with guns" never have anything bad happen as a result of bringing a gun into their home, they "stop bad guys with guns." So when people laugh at them they go nuts. The only explanation they can come up with is that it's a political conspiracy of some sort. (See Dave and Aubrey, above.)

Dave and Aubrey, it's not because other people are "liberals." It's not because the Constitution tells you to get a gun. (Read it again - like a lot of things, your decision to be foolish is left up to you.)

What is going on here is that we think you are fools. Childish posers, living out a fantasy. (In Dave's case with some creepy sexual overtones.) Aubrey: You'll never defend yourself with your gun. Never. Not in real life; only in your fantasies. But you may hurt someone else, accidentally, intentionally, through bad judgment or bad luck. You are a net negative to the community. Your inability to see your own lack of judgment is a pretty good indicator that the likelihood of having your bullets end up inside of an innocent are higher than average.

That's all it is. No big political issue. The Constitution doesn't give a rat's a$$ about it one way or another. We don't really care about you very much either, as long as you don't shoot us for texting in a movie theater or playing music in a parking lot, or kill one of our kids. Web Link

Problem is, you've demonstrated the increased likelihood of doing just that.

@Peter - A couple of things are clear, you're clueless, you didn't read a thing I wrote, and you live in your own alternate reality. The fact that it took a 6 paragraph dissertation to affirm your level of delusion is impressive...

I read everything you wrote, Aubrey. I commented on it. Your inability to come to grips with what normal people think about your hero fantasy is really the problem here, isn't it? You think you're a hero-in-waiting. We see that in reality you're a pathetic poser. You can't handle the truth, so you engage in name-calling. Somehow you seem to think this demonstrates how you have the ability to avoid making bad decisions with a gun. In fact, your snotty comebacks just demonstrate your immaturity and the increased likelihood of your doing something stupid with a deadly weapon.

Hey Peter, time to put away your computer---your mom is calling--

@Peter - Again, it's clear you didn't read what I wrote or you have a reading comprehension issue. Where did your delusions about "hero fantasy" originate? And what name-calling are you referencing? If anything it's you that has engaged in that behavior ("hero-in_waiting", "pathetic poser", "childish poser", "gun nut"). Just admit that your bias won't allow to have a rational conversation about this topic and you compensate by lashing out.

I'll give you the last word, not because you'll write anything relevant to the topic, but because you won't be able to help yourself. Sad indeed...

@Aubrey and Dave,

You both seem to draw upon the key emotion that I keep emphasizing. If I bring my 'peacekeeper' to the party, I will make you uncomfortable and vice-versa. If I carried out the same action but concealed my possession, then everyone would go about their respective business correct?

With great and gross presumption on my part, I will work from the premise that I've been around longer then yourself and lived across more regions of this great country of ours. I assure you that in small towns throughout the southwest and southeast where you are as likely to know the person next to you at the market (Walmart, typically) and in the pew next to you at church, you would find no such emotional reaction to the entry of that individual into your space should they be carrying. In fact, it does typically boil down to a core machismo factor to see who brings either most audacious, the most expensive or rare and, of course, where size matters the biggest caliber 'peacekeeper' you can carry.

Got no problem whatsoever with any of it so long as I know when you and your ilk enter the space of myself and my ilk. Not complicated at all.

What I know that the both of you are dancing around is that you know society has a distinct and immediate response to the presence of an armed stranger. We have grown accustom to the presence of law enforcement carrying a weapon because of our reliance and/or presumption of the benefits of their training. While it is conjecture to assume what occurred within the caves when one of the clan picked up a bigger stick then the rest, I believe that reaction is the same one you'll get today if the stranger next to you knows you are carrying. That is why you believe in concealment. You want to be able to move about society with your 'peacekeeper' without society reacting to you. You want the insatiable comfort that carrying a 'peacekeeper' provides without the undesired potential for provocation from another who may observe you with the weapon and choose to challenge you for it. Again, another human action that is no more foreign to us then it was our ancestors.

So now I present you with a dilemma. I completely support your 2nd amendment rights. I, in fact, might greatly enjoy trading stories about gun lore and the like. I do, however, completely understand and appreciate why at the turn of the 19th century, WE as a society moved away from the 24/7 lock-n-load mentality. Perhaps, you could at least understand the points made as you provide your visceral reply to my contribution. Think about it.

Now, there's a James Arness rerun coming on the ol' tube so I'm going to run. I encourage you both to watch a few of those and maybe you'll see how real people like Marshall Matt Dillion carried back in the day.

You are right, I am a nut. But so are you. Do you really think civilized society has achieved something when everyone is carrying a visible weapon? a concealed weapon? There are far more intelligent ways to protect yourself than using a gun.
OK, let's suppose a criminal pulls a gun on you and demands your purse or wallet. Are you safer by pulling out your gun or in graver danger. If you think safer... I think your nuts. By reaching for a gun and then pulling it out and then getting it aimed in the correct direction to shoot, you have just entered the zone of death. The shooter wins that exchange every time!!! Who shoots who first? If I am the robber with the gun, I know you are very likely to shoot, so I have a choice, run or shoot. If that equates to 50/50 odds, then by pulling your gun you have a 50% chance of being shot. I wager that if you DON'T pull the gun, your chances are far less of getting shot. I say, give the robber your money, and when he turns around, shoot him in the back... oops that would be a crime on your part.
As far as guns being "peacekeepers." What a farce. They are tools used for emotionally and physically violent negotiation...

@Aubrey: "Why are liberals so against another person's right to defend themselves?
Answer: We, liberals and righteous bigots alike are not against a persons right to defend themselves.

@Aubrey: "If you don't want to own or carry a firearm, that is your right, but it's not your right to inflict your decision on me. If I choose to carry a firearm it's solely for the purpose of defending myself, and possibly my family, not those around me."
Answer: You bring up the question of personal right versus public right. In public, your rights are negotiated in a democratic process. Your feeling safer by carrying a gun makes me feel threatened. You show up in a mall, a movie theater, at a political rally, at a school, at a sports game, at a kids performance with concealed OR visible weapon, makes me feel FAR LESS SAFE. To me, to go out in public without a gun, is a risk society says you must be willing to take. If you are not, then stay in your house. Just like driving and flying.

@Aubrey: "I do understand the reasoning behind requiring a firearm to be concealed versus making it openly visible as it can make others nervous and uncomfortable."
Answer: Good, however I also feel nervous that anyone, without a permit could have a concealed gun.

@Aubrey: "It's a free country, but don't forget how your freedom is secured...
Answer: I beg to differ, it is a "democratic" country. And one of the major tenets is that being democratic does not mean you are "free" to do what you want. Believe it or not, society has a say.

@ Aubrey:

what REALLY bothers JT and the others is, someone like you relies on yourself! and you'll defend yourself! and you're not naive! evil DOES exist in the world... but really, Aubrey, don't try to reason with liberals...waste of time. mock them for their dangerous idiocy.

they just can't get their little brain-washed heads around the idea of self-reliance...they just keep repeating to themselves "the government will take care of me...the government will take care of me..." sheeple...

AUBREY, YOU GO GIRL!

Come now Dave, those that believe that evil does exist in our world are not easily defined by one party over the next. Last any of us checked, men and women of all affiliations have given the ultimate sacrifice for our great country.

What you are clearly 'ducking' is the call-out on whether you feel confident and competent enough to go out into our world with society knowing what you are in possession.

So, Dave, share your opinion. "YOU GO GIRL"

@JT - According to the Constitution, my rights in private AND public are non-negotiable when it comes to self-defense. My rights begin where your's end and vice-versa. As such, if my carrying a firearm makes you feel less safe, you have the right to carry as well. The reverse has no such recourse in your arguement.

Your feeling nervous about someone carrying, or even possibly carrying, a gun is YOUR issue, not mine and I have no desire nor need to address it. I'm nervous about police carrying weapons as they get it wrong far too often, but that's something I have to live with.

Actually this country is a Constitution Republic and the Constitution limits what society can legislate and my right to protect myself is protected.

@Conservator:

Wait...OH, I get it now!...you just called me a GIRL! genius...

Aubrey is more of a stud than all you lib-patsy's on this site put together, so coming from you, 'YOU GO GIRL!' is a mega-compliment! Thanks, Patsy!

ok, drone, you can now go back to listening to NPR to get your marching orders for tomorrow's posts. I think stammering Terry Gross is extolling the many virtues of being a compassionate victim of poorly understood Oakland gang-bangers....sounds like something right up your alley!

REMINDER: try to find a way to use your food stamps, er, sorry, EBT card to make a pledge to NPR and be the first pretty Prius on your block to sport the new bumper sticker: "I'm Ready for Hilary 'Cackle Cankles' Clinton 2016!! Wow! You'll be so hip! But you already knew that....

@Dave,

I see you have a temper. Very intriguing. I also see that you can appreciate the stylistics aspects of MOCKING as an art-form. Good show, my mild mannered friend. In terms of defining who or what a 'stud' is, perhaps that should be a separate post you may want to explore on both a personal and spiritual level.

Staying to the topic of hand, it seems to me that you are shielding your opinions through the more feminine commentator (or perhaps not 'more' on the later point). Regardless, let me give you a link to follow (http://matineeclassics.com). It has a wealth of regalia in homage to men who are quite comfortable in their own skin. I really recommend that you start with Hopalong and graduate to King James Arness. When you're ready for graduate level courses, try Westworld with the incomparable Yul Brynner. Watch a little and then share you own opinion on the topic of concealed versus open carry. Be strong and stay coherent in your thoughts.

Someone (i.e. yourself) might even learn something from what you'll likely spew.

Very interesting "discussion." Sounds like some folks have lived in CA for too long & need to get out more. There are other parts of CA (outside of the Bay Area) & the USA with law-abiding, gun-owning citizens (like my very proper schoolteacher cousin, now 70 years old) who are very respectful of their weapons & have no need to advertise that they own one. Education is key. There are excellent firearms training classes out there, whose focus is gun safety & self-defense, not shooting people. I'd recommend such training for everyone, whether you own a gun or never plan to; it will also teach you what to do/not do if some "nut case" pulls an Uzi while you're in a shopping mall. Those who oppose concealed carry are assuming that the carrier can't wait to draw their weapon. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have concealed weapons permits in multiple states. Pulling my firearm would be my absolute last resort. As an aside, did you notice that rifle shooting is part of the Olympics? In most states, firearms are a tool for hunting/sport, with many learning the correct handling at an early age. Again, education & training remove the 'gun-slinging' attitude & lack of respect shown by the idiots out there that give gun owners a bad name. There are competitive rifle teams in CA. Yet, in CA, gun ownership is demonized. Why is that? Is it fear? Lack of education? An ideological difference? Whatever it is, it cannot infringe on my right to bear arms.

Personally, I am sorry that the current Court read-out the militia clause, and created a broader Constitutional right than the founders clearly intended. Throughout most of our history (before those "activist judges" got ahold of it), the 2A right properly related to national, not self-defense. That doesn't mean that the legislatures couldn't create a broader right by statute, in states where men-are-men, and sheep-are-nervous, but it would get all you gunnsters down off your only very recently very high horses.

I guess we'll just have to wait a few years -- 'til Hillary re-establishes the appropriate liberal majority.

Hey, can I play too?
I may only speak for myself, but I must say that in the ol' wild west town of Danville, like Dave (if he's being serious and not just trolling) and Aubrey O'Reilly, I live in a state of near-constant fear. I never know when some knife-wielding lunatic might accost me at Trader Joes. Or carjack my Yugo as I pry the door open in front of Arco. Or when some pervert may penetrate my private premises. Er, at home I mean. Why, it has gotten so bad I have taken to wearing Depends lately because sometimes the fear and quaking just overtakes me.
I can only pray that when the day comes - and I am sure it will be soon - when some evil-doer approaches with ill intent, that Aubrey or Dave or Rick Pshaw is there to save me. And I certainly hope they can keep their firearms handy. You never know when that big tall dark guy in the White House may send his goons to abscond with the brave defender's semi-auto's.

@Derek,

Excellent post. Please allow me to offer an alternative to the aspect of evil 'goons' emanating from the White House to change our way of life and take one's gun away.

A recent Drudge 'report' indicates that the POTUS may be training not goons but, sadly, flying monkeys. Yes, it's all being done under a covert NSA program call Project OZ. The most reliable forward looking intelligence indicates that the Federal government may be using old Minutemen silos located throughout the Kansas plains to incubate their heinous plan. It's possible that they may use inclement weather to advance upon an unsuspecting populous. Be especially cautious on windy days. The tell-tale sign that their ominous plan is afoot will be if you see their field commander in the sky, powered by a single exhaust jet pack (disguised as a corn broom to mask the heat signal). It's also possible that in biblical fashion, the commander of such an evil Armageddon will be female - possibly a former first lady. It's theorized that she'll likely be dressed as an everyday mother-in-law for cover with a penchant for green power suits. Our best hope for a patriotic outcome may reside with the neighbors (i.e. protectors) that we have in this area….

Well, shoot -- No, WAIT!! That was just a figure of speech!

I'm just stopping-by to say thanks for the chuckle, Derek and Conservator. Beware of flying greenies, and monkeys, houses and drones. Web Link BTW, have point values been assigned for taking-out pesky drones with one's trusty .357?

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment]