Lawyers Take Final Shots in Gates Gun Permit Case : Trial: The 12-year-old lawsuit, which seeks $10 million in damages, goes to the jury.

Allegations that the gun permit policies of Orange County Sheriff Brad Gates are riddled with political favoritism went to the jury Thursday after attorneys debated whether a double standard was applied to an elite circle of sheriff’s backers described in court as “The Brad Gates Gun Club.”

“The sheriff gave concealed weapons permits to ranchers, jewelers, investors, developers, and bankers--the pool of people he wanted to rub elbows with,” said Meir J. Westreich, an attorney for Frank Ritter and his brother, Ty, two private investigators who were denied gun permits six times.

But in his final summation, Eric L. Dobberteen, the sheriff’s lawyer, attacked the Ritters’ credibility and argued that after an impartial review they were properly denied permits because they told deputies a “big puff story.”

“Sgt. (Dennis) Rone didn’t feel they were forthright with him,” Dobberteen told the jury. “He said, ‘I don’t think they should get one. . . .’ There is no indication in the (Ritters’) files of political or occupational considerations.”

The attorneys made their final arguments Thursday in a civil-rights lawsuit alleging that Gates’ procedures for granting concealed weapons permits were so tainted by cronyism and politics that they violated the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The 12-year-old lawsuit, which seeks $10 million in damages, has been in trial before U.S. District Judge William P. Gray, whose chambers are in the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals headquarters in Pasadena.

For almost three weeks, both sides have presented the jury with documentary evidence related to 2,000 gun permits and testimony from more than 10 witnesses, including Gates, who defended his policies as fair and evenhanded.

“The evidence doesn’t support discrimination against the Ritters,” Dobberteen said. “No motivation has been shown. They didn’t support the sheriff, but no one knew they didn’t support the sheriff. There is no evidence that the sheriff even saw their applications.”

The Ritters, however, presented 65 gun permits issued to the sheriff’s friends, business partners, political supporters and others who have provided equipment, services or information to the Sheriff’s Department.

In addition, the evidence suggested that 101 out of 108 people who contributed a total of $120,000 to the sheriff’s election campaigns received gun permits. A statistics expert testified that the chance of that happening was one in a million.

Dobberteen called the analysis flawed. He pointed out that some people were included in the study although they gave contributions years after getting the right to carry a concealed weapon.

Other gun-permit records show that major contributors obtained permits in one day without filling out applications or going through the 60- to 90-day review process. According to the records, some were issued by the sheriff’s secretary, Shirley Taylor.

“They are the Brad Gates Gun Club,” Westreich said. “They don’t have to go by rigorous standards.”

As further evidence of discrimination, Westreich produced a Sheriff’s Department policy purportedly written in 1976 suggesting that a more stringent standard for gun permits be applied to private investigators such as the Ritters.

According to the evidence, Gates has said in sworn testimony in other gun-permit lawsuits from 1978 to 1980 that such a policy never existed. Westreich said the written policy was found in a miscellaneous records drawer at the Sheriff’s Department in 1986.

“Sheriff Gates told you in a calm demeanor and with self-confidence that his policies are fair,” Westreich told the jury. “You have to go past that story. It is not the same story. Each time he has told a different story.”

Dobberteen contended that it did not matter how other gun permit applicants were treated by the sheriff because the Ritters were given adequate consideration and were not turned away because they were private investigators.

Hammering at the Ritters’ truthfulness, Dobberteen pointed out that Ty Ritter was convicted in 1983 of conspiracy and possessing unlicensed firearms for which he served seven months in prison.

He also said the Ritters have given conflicting statements about the success of their bodyguard business. In their testimony, the Ritters said the lack of concealed weapon permits hurt their business and caused them to lose thousands of dollars in revenue.

But Dobberteen told the jury that the Ritters said something different under oath in a plagiarism lawsuit they brought in 1987 against the TV detective show “Simon and Simon.” At that time, they claimed that the business was doing well. The suit was later dismissed.

“Can you believe they had a need (for a permit)?” Dobberteen said. “If you can’t believe them, why should the Sheriff’s Department believe them?”