In Response to the ruling coming from the Ninth Circuit Court:

 http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/02/19/10-56971%20web.pdf

I shared this with my son on Facebook and have edited it here:

The Ninth Circuit court did this to avoid open carry. They had to decide which was the more egregious to the lefties - concealed carry, or open carry. Open carry scares them to death - seeing guns in public! When the Second Amendment reads, "the right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED," which any government school graduate understands to mean both open carry and concealed carry are permissible. This ruling also suggests if anyone (At this point anyone who can pass the California background check San Diego County CCW qualifications.) who applies for a CCW is refused then they have a new suit to make open carry the law because the Ninth Circuit got one thing right - citizens have to be permitted a Constitutionally protected right to carry guns if they so choose freely exercise that right. Thomas do you think California sheriffs are just going to have a blanket policy of handing out CCW? Also I assume this ruling has been stayed and will be put on hold till the Supreme Court makes a ruling?

Thomas Sherer to Jim Sherer yes, totally agree. It was interesting that they do a really deep historical analysis that says that concealed carry became outlawed in the 1800s for social reasons, but open carry was still normal and expected for gentlemen. Now society has changed and people don't want to see guns anymore, but there needs to be some good way for lawful citizens to bear arms outside their homes.
First step is that San Diego will almost certainly appeal to the Supreme Court. Best case scenario is the court doesn't take the case... But that is unlikely given the split that exists among Federal Courts of Appeal. Assuming the Supreme Court goes our way which is not inconceivable given recent decisions like Heller and McDonald, "shall issue" will become the law of the land and anyone who is of good moral character can get a ccw. 2-3 years.

Jim Sherer "good moral character" is this going to be the same way they skirted obscenity laws - can't define it but I know it when I see it? Better yet skirt abortion restrictions - to save the life of the mother? So they leave it up to states to define good moral character and eventually there are several suits and splits by the lower courts as to "good moral character" and then we have 5 justices of dubious character defining for the rest of us what is "good moral character." If they were smart they would out and out fall back on the original wording of the constitution "shall not be infringed." Probably somewhere in their 200 page ruling someone would be smart to place the words.. only restriction will be people with federal felony convictions, or felony convictions, or felony convictions while using a firearm. Got to throw someone under the bus to satisfy the lefty's. 

Here is what I thought would happen:
Jim Sherer The cities always appeal and waste gobs of taxpayers money on an already determined outcome - they are going to be slapped down. Why not instead, save the money, spend it on the children and write a law which allows citizens to conceal carry based on the CCW laws of states which do permit CCW? Naw, F**k the children we can't allow GUNS, ahhhhh we'd become like TEXAS [or, worse Wyoming havens for all which is Redneck and bigoted]!- added later for emphasis. 

Here is what really happened:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/21/san-diego-wont-appeal-9th-circuit-on-concealed-car/
 

Hey Thomas what about this: Well I did not expect this. One of the smartest moves by a progressive ever. Not willing to gamble on how the Supreme Court was going to rule on those pesky four words, which the sheriff claims, I would assume he has sworn to uphold, can be overlooked "...shall not be infringed." Better to back down than become the sheriff remembered forever for claiming ..."shall not be infringed." meant, a background check, paying fees, interview and a gun course. Which someone in the article is quoted as saying, "...all other lawful qualifications." This is so rich and ironic; a case ruled by the Ninth Circuit court over the fact a CCW was denied to a citizen when others citizens were receiving CCWs. I can see the next case developing already - those who want a CCW but are denied because of the prohibitive cost of a CCW, or how about a deaf person failing the interview, or how about a citizen who is an introvert who is to nervous, or how about a citizen who speaks one of the 32 other languages recognized by California bureaucracy denied an interpreter for the interview (I am thinking of the Korean business men in South Los Angels during the Rodney King riots.); all perpetrated by San Diego county government. The final word is all adults understand interviews are always objective, truthful events leading to the best outcome; right? 

What I hope happens is the Sheriffs office is so inundated by citizens requesting CCW the sheriffs office's resources are prohibitively used up by this endeavor to meet "...all other lawful qualifications." taking deputies of the street leading to an outcry by other citizens who actually could use them for real crime prevention instead of this TSA style smoke and mirrors crime prevention.

 When people tell you what happens in California is going to spread to other states remember this case.