I'm a new member so don't crucify me over this simple question.
As I understand, Peruta v. SDSD was due to not being able to defend oneself with a firearm due to open carry ban, and being denied a concealed carry permit.
Basically, Peruta wasn't able to carry open or in concealment.
It's my understanding that Ventura County Sheriff Dean requires CCW applicants to be of moral character.
If individuals are legally capable of owning firearms, doesn't Peruta v. SDSD nullify moral character requirement?
The purpose of Peruta's lawsuit was due to an individual who is capable of owning a firearm being unable to carry, opened or concealed for self-defense.
I mean, open carry ban, lack of good cause, or not meeting the sheriff's definition of moral character is essentially the same difference and denies an individual who can legally possess a firearm the option of carrying a firearm for self-defense.
Isn't this simple logic?
As I understand, Peruta v. SDSD was due to not being able to defend oneself with a firearm due to open carry ban, and being denied a concealed carry permit.
Basically, Peruta wasn't able to carry open or in concealment.
It's my understanding that Ventura County Sheriff Dean requires CCW applicants to be of moral character.
If individuals are legally capable of owning firearms, doesn't Peruta v. SDSD nullify moral character requirement?
The purpose of Peruta's lawsuit was due to an individual who is capable of owning a firearm being unable to carry, opened or concealed for self-defense.
I mean, open carry ban, lack of good cause, or not meeting the sheriff's definition of moral character is essentially the same difference and denies an individual who can legally possess a firearm the option of carrying a firearm for self-defense.
Isn't this simple logic?
Comment