The whole San Diego law was a sham.
The lead plaintiff in the case unsuccessfully sought a permit to carry a concealed firearm. In California, obtaining such a permit is (as the judge noted in his ruling) "the only way that the typical responsible, law-abiding citizen can carry a weapon in public for the lawful purpose of self-defense." Applicants for concealed-carry permits in California must demonstrate "good moral character," complete a specified training course, and establish "good cause." Then the State left the interpretation of those provisions to local authorities.
San Diego County adopted a policy that interpreted the "good cause" requirement as "a set of circumstances that distinguish the applicant from the mainstream and causes him or her to be placed in harm's way." The judge noted that the "concern for one's personal safety alone is not considered good cause" in the San Diego policy.
But the requirement for "good cause," at least as interpreted by San Diego County, is flagrantly unreasonable. By stipulating that an applicant must "distinguish" himself "from the mainstream" -- that ordinary people need not apply -- the county transmutes a right into a privilege or dispensation.
At least in most good and decent corners of the USA, that's still considered to be wrong.
.
