California overreached on concealed carry

To the editor: California's law allowing counties to restrict permits for carrying concealed weapons denies ordinary citizens the right to defend themselves when necessary. The law assumes that a sheriff or police chief is truly clairvoyant and can predict accurately who will need protection. ("A sane gun law is under fire in San Diego," Editorial, Nov. 16)

Deciding to carry a concealed gun should be the same type of decision as buying large insurance policies to protect your financial assets and still provide financial assistance to the injured party if you cause a bad wreck, to replace your house if it burns down or to provide financial support for your family if you die young. These are rare occurrences, but they do happen. So it is with a gun.


As the saying goes, "A gun is like a parachute: When you need one, nothing else will do."

Sinclair Buckstaff, Northridge


To the editor: The Times disagrees with a federal appeals court decision on California's concealed carry law and the decision of the court to limit intervenors. The Times fails to mention that the opinion was made possible by the Legislature passing a law prohibiting carrying unloaded firearms publicly.

The state enacted this law to counter demonstrators who were exercising their right to carry by going to restaurants to make a point. When the Legislature banned open carry, it left us only the right of concealed carry to exercise our 2nd Amendment liberty.

The federal judges found San Diego County's concealed carry scheme so limiting as to violate the 2nd Amendment. As the majority opinion held, it was beyond the county's power to hold the 2nd Amendment dead or out of date.

This decision was made possible because California outlawed open carry. Had California not passed this prohibition, the result of this case probably would have been different.

Sal Tarantino, San Diego

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion