Is The SFSD Looking For A Lawsuit?

The San Francisco Sheriff’s Department posted this on Twitter yesterday in response to the Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling in Bruen.

Are they just asking to get sued? Not only are the requirements onerous but they freely admit that not one permit has been issued since 2020 in a county of over 800,000 people. I can just see the California Gun Rights Foundation, FPC, and the Second Amendment Foundation itching to file a joint lawsuit as soon as possible.

7 thoughts on “Is The SFSD Looking For A Lawsuit?”

  1. Not relevant to SF but I think things are about to get worse for gun owners in large parts of NY and CA. Away from the big cities, lots of places there are de facto shall issue at the initiative of local judges and sheriffs. Noises coming from the Left indicate that the attempt to nullify Bruen will include more restrictive rules about everything and it will happen at the state level, eliminating the islands of sanity. It will take years of litigation to break the resistance especially when, as I expect, the Circuit Courts in these jurisdictions continue to abet the anti-constitutional forces. Thomas killed the two-part test but they will come up with something else.

    1. Yes.
      They will be creative.
      They will push the cots as high as they can.
      They will fight to make every step impossible to comply with to the point of absurdity.
      And SCOTUS can’t possibly handle it all.
      Not to mention the structure and makeup of the SCOTUS is in jeopardy.

  2. Cali and the other may issue states will base their legislation on the concurring opinion from Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh. SB 918 is currently in the Cali Assembly and tee’d up for the Public Safety Committee. Expect the areas where licensed carriers can carry to be very limited – contrary to the text of the majority opinion. Expect expensive fees and lengthy process and psych evaluations and live fire demonstrations where the number of persons authorized to carry out the tests are limited so as to bottleneck the process. More litigation should be expected. The protection racket is not over by a long shot. See also how certain government entities responded to Brown v. Board of Education.

  3. I’d also think that the Sheriff’s Dept is correct that they should not be changing how they process applications based on the decision. It is up to the state legislature to write new laws that comply and up to the SD to then implement those laws. Unless I’m wrong about how this stuff works.

    1. I am not an attorney.
      My understanding is you are wrong.
      The permit process is still in place but the specific “proper cause” is unlawful and invalid under the 2nd Amendment as incorporated to the States under the q4th Amendment.

      If they deny based on lack of ‘proper cause’ or special need, they will loose a lawsuit (if the courts follow proper jurisprudence) regardless of legislative inaction.

      JMHO based on my informal but decades of trying to understand these and other aspects of law.

  4. Delay, deny, obfuscate, and lie. Nothing will change until it is litigated to death, and maybe not then. If anything, some of the anointed class will be allowed a permit just to deflect criticism. The last statement in the post is a good example of their mindset- “More guns in the community does not mean the community is more safe”. Statistically, for concealed carriers, every metric I’ve seen proves just the opposite.

Comments are closed.