In the coming years, it is likely you will encounter people in San Francisco carrying concealed weapons.
A Supreme Court ruling from last year forced localities to soften permitting rules. In short, the court ruled that “may issue” laws — in which officials have broad discretion to deny a person seeking a concealed weapon permit — violate the Second Amendment. Areas with “may issue” laws must now transition to “shall issue” laws, in which the permit-seeker is entitled to a permit unless they are deemed unfit to carry a weapon.
As a result, San Francisco has begun the process of granting new licenses. Previously in the city, an individual had to demonstrate “good cause” for obtaining a permit, such as working in areas with high rates of violent crime. The city seldom found that individuals met the “good cause” standard, which resulted in very few concealed carry permits in San Francisco.
That “good cause” standard has now been replaced by a more lax interim policy with only four requirements. First, the individual — whether a San Francisco resident or a resident of another county who works in San Francisco — must legally own the firearm they seek to carry. From there, if the individual can complete a firearms safety course, as well as pass both a psychological test and a background check, they will be granted a permit.
The San Francisco Sheriff’s Office told SFGATE that the psychological exam consists of a multiple choice test and an interview conducted by Law Enforcement Psychological Services (LEPS), a screening service the city uses for police and other law enforcement officers. LEPS did not immediately respond to an SFGATE request for a copy of the multiple choice test.
For the background check, the sheriff’s office will not only conduct the standard California Department of Justice background check used for firearm purchases, but, according to the new policy, will also review “materials such as citations, arrests, convictions, civil lawsuits, employment discharges, military discharges, license denials, license revocations, other actions indicating a possible propensity for violence or moral turpitude, drug and/or alcohol abuse, carelessness with weapons, and/or dishonesty to determine whether the applicant is a law abiding, responsible citizen.”
Unless something comes up in that background check that calls into question “whether the applicant is a law abiding, responsible citizen,” the city must issue the permit. San Francisco Sheriff Paul Miyamoto told KGO that the city is currently reviewing 72 permit applications, and expects between 100 and 200 over the next year.
Lawmakers at both the city and state level are seeking restrictions on where individuals with permits can carry concealed firearms. At the state level, Gov. Gavin Newsom has thrown his support behind legislation that would raise the minimum age for acquiring a permit from 18 to 21 and add new training and storage requirements.
Of course, any of those restrictions could be struck down by the courts as well. On age requirements, the 9th Circuit of Appeals has already invalidated a previous California requirement that individuals be 21 to purchase semiautomatic weapons. It’s not a stretch to believe that reasoning could apply to concealed weapons permits as well.
In addition to softening permitting rules for concealed carry, last year’s Supreme Court ruling prescribed a new test for lower courts in Second Amendment cases: For a gun control measure to be constitutionally permissible, it must be “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
UCLA law professor Adam Winkler, one of the country’s leading Second Amendment scholars, told SFGATE last summer that in the case last year, New York City had provided historical analogues used to justify its permitting rules.
“The court says they’re looking to history and tradition, but New York presented plenty of history on restrictions on concealed carry that the court dismissed as outliers or not historically relevant,” he said. “The court claimed it was using history, but it looked like politics as usual to me.”