The linked story includes this : “Martin J. Mayer, the counsel to the California Police Chiefs Association, which also appealed the decision, said, “We all know a proliferation of weapons will increase the potential of them being used, whether you are talking about a domestic violence dispute, a road rage situation or a barroom brawl.”
OK, twenty years ago, before CCW permits were “shall issue” in a majority of states, this was at least a respectable line of argument, or at least a testable hypothesis. Now, we don’t have to speculate, since we’ve got crime data going back to the mid 90’s when the “shall issue’ movement started to grow.
There is no longer room for disagreement on the facts: shall issue CCW laws do not lead to more “road rage” shootings, shootings following a bar room brawl, or any such thing. All that’s left to dispute is to what degree, and for which crimes, does shall issue reduce crime.
Anyone who continues to use this long-discredited trope of the “wild west” should be publicly mocked and shamed. They do not deserve the courtesy of a reasoned argument.
Cops don’t like citizens being “equals.”
BTW, the Lawyers for Peruta v. San Diego have filed a brief saying that while the State Attorney General really doesn’t have “standing” to request an en banc 9th Circuit review, they won’t object to it. But they additionally claim that both the Brady Campaign and the CPCA and the COPA don’t have any standing and have asked the court to disallow their claims for an en banc.