Marin County Sheriff: I love everything about the 2nd Amendment, except the part where it lets people carry guns

Heading into Marin CountyIt turns out that even in Progressive Marin County, law-abiding residents want to carry guns on their persons.  In the weeks since the 9th Circuit (!) held that county’s cannot condition concealed-carry permits on the sheriff’s determination that the applicant has made a credibly showing that he or she is in fear for his (or her) life, the upswing in concealed-carry applications has even reached true blue Marin (emphasis mine):

As Californians in some locations have flooded sheriff’s offices with applications and inquiries for permits to carry concealed guns, in Marin, sheriff’s officials say they have been fielding more calls than usual.

Demand is being driven by a federal appeals court ruling last month that made it easier for some residents to obtain the hard-to-get permits. About 56,000 Californians have a concealed-weapons permit in a state of 38 million residents. [Prior to the ruling] In Marin County, the sheriff’s office has issued only 21 concealed weapons permits.”

Those in Marin afraid of guns, though, need not worry that their perfectly nice neighbor, the one who brings casseroles when they’re sick and helps prop up fences in winter storms, will be packing legal heat any time soon.  Although the 9th Circuit may have spoken, that’s not good enough for Marin’s Sheriff:

Marin County Sheriff Robert Doyle said he doesn’t plan to loosen how permits are issued until the issue has been conclusively decided by the courts. He said he’s not sure how may people have applied for permits since the ruling as most of the inquiries in Marin have been phone calls.

“We’ve had more requests than usual since the ruling. We’ve told people they can apply, but we’re going to apply the same standard of demonstrating ‘good cause’ until it’s finally been decided by the court,” Doyle said. “The decision has basically been put on stay for three weeks to give the parties time to respond.”

Color me cynical, but I’m willing to bet that, if Sheriff Doyle had been in charge, Marin would have been issuing same-sex marriage licenses within minutes of the 9th Circuit’s decision striking down California’s Prop. 8, the much-maligned law holding that marriage is between one man and one woman.  A foolish consistency, though, is never the hobgoblin of Leftist minds.

What’s so incredibly funny in all this is Sheriff Doyle’s position on gun rights:

Doyle said he’s a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment, but believes concealed-weapons permits should be reserved for those who have some sort of verifiable threat in their lives.

“I don’t agree with the adage that the more guns we have, the safer we are,” Doyle said. “We do have business owners that have been robbed and some people that carry large sums of money in the course of their employment carrying concealed guns.”

Properly translated, what Doyle is saying is that “I strongly support the Second Amendment, except for the part where it says that the right to carry arms is inherent in the people, and not dependent on the whim of the government.  But otherwise, if I decide someone deserves to have a gun, I might actually give that person permission.  Maybe.”

I shouldn’t poke too much fun at the sheriff.  He is, after all, a perfect reflection of the county he serves.  Everyone here claims fealty to the Bill of Rights, provided that it’s eviscerated to conform with Leftist norms.

Even if Doyle is, as I suspect, a very nice man, I’d rather have Milwaukee’s Sheriff Clarke in charge of our concealed-carry licensing program:

Police chief get a gun

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. jj says

    Yet another skull full of pus who somehow thinks that someone outside his immediate family cares what he thinks.  Doyle: thinking for yourself isn’t part of the job description.  Which is lucky, because you’re no good at it.  Just shut up and issue permits as applied for, zero thought required.

  2. Texan99 says

    Nice attitude toward a federal court ruling that hasn’t been stayed pending appeal–the usual recourse for people who’d like to continue flouting a law until all appeals have been exhausted.

  3. 11B40 says

    Greetings:
     
    As a Navy aficionada, I would have thought that you’d recognize “protecting the rice bowl” in action.  There’s something basic about human beings that makes monopolies so very attractive.
     
    Usually gun rights restrictions come from our vaunted Chiefs of Police, especially their fraternal organization as opposed to Sheriffs who are usually elected officials, but I guess that Marin is so far into its one party state that that distinction is beyond importance.
     
    Lastly, I’m still hoping for a challenge to California’s magazine size restrictions based on the ones that police and sheriffs have and use so very well.  My thinking comes from the brouhahas back when the officers and officerettes and officer-whatevers wanted to change from their trusty six-shot revolvers to semi-automatics based on , among other things, the criminals already having the larger capacity weapons and the potential impact that that might have on their safety.  If criminals had them then and now why should lawful civilians owners be intentionally put at riskier risk.
     
    One last bit of tid: If semi-automatics fire one bullet per trigger pull, aren’t revolvers semi-automatics too ???

    • jj says

      Don’t say that!  At least not in California, or any place where Feensteen can hear you!  So far it hasn’t occurred to a lot of them, her included, that everything with a trigger qualifies as an ‘assault’ weapon under their description.

  4. MacG says

    It is interesting to read the states constitutions regarding arms.  Many just copy the US constitution while others add the caveat that the State has the right to regualte the manner in which the arms are borne.  While others state that concealed arms are prohibited.  
     
    Keep and bear arms. Bear can mean to carry but also expose.  Does this mean that the Founders did not have in mind concealed weapons and that actually open carry is the constitutional and civiized way – not concealed weapons?  That makes some sense to me being transparant in your self defense makes one less of a target than a concealed weapon whereas the various States prohibit concealed weapons bears in mind the dubious reasons a person might want to conceal a weapon.  A ban on concealed weapons shows that those states were saying that only criminals will have concealed weapons and that the decent people would be carrying openly?  Isn’t that nature’s way, see big fangs, nothing to see here, move onto find a fangless bambi.
    I just found it interesting seeing the differing philosphies of the States.
     
    http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-laws.aspx
     
     

  5. erisguy says

     held that county’s cannot condition 
     
    Hmm. Not a mistake I’d expect here. Anyone can have a bad day.
     
    The sheriff is following the example provided by sanctuary cities and by President Obama himself: if you don’t like the law, you don’t have to obey or enforce it, unless, of course, Leftists like the law, then: no dissent, no toleration, no divergence! 

  6. Jose says

    No doubt the good sheriff has a sidearm stuffed under his belt when off duty.  I wonder if he has ever needed to use it.  If not, can he show good cause?
     
    Yeah, that 9th Circuit decision excited me, too.

  7. says

    Aristocrats always thought that they should be armed and the peasants disarmed. The idea that a noble life can be so easily killed by a low class ruffian is not what the Democrats like to think about.

  8. Matt_SE says

    We are all co-conspirators in the popular narrative of “our brave men and women in the police force,” but I think many of them are unionized cowards and bullies who love pushing citizens around…as long as nobody pushes back.
    As I’ve said before in other contexts, this ends with civil disobedience. If the Marin county sheriff’s office has, according to their website “a staff of 207 sworn deputies and 114 law enforcement professionals,” maybe they need to be confronted by an armed group of 300-400 citizens before they “get” who’s in charge.
     
    The sheriff’s statements seem to bear that out.

    • Ron19 says

      One example:
       
      20-40 years ago, my brother-in-law the big city cop was even in the swat team, until he couldn’t convince someone else to drive up a dump truck up so that he could hide behind it.  He immediately transferred to the fingerprinting job, and stayed there the rest of his career.  He originally joined the police so that he wouldn’t get drafted into the Army.  That and some other things.  He was indeed a coward who tried to hid behind superior firepower and defenses, rather than actually go in harm’s way.
       
      I’ve also known cops who were not cowards.

  9. 11B40 says

    Greetings, jj says:
     
    But, but, but,… wasn’t it Senatress Feinstein who first said, “You cam take my Senate seat when you pry it from my cold, dead, ass.” ???

    • says

      I had a low view of this Marin sheriff before hand. Nothing he has done lately has proven otherwise. Well, that’s his problem. Our problem is if Marin conquers America and we have to live by Marin rules.

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply