Sonoma County Cannot Shoot Straight

When researching Sonoma County’s (CA) concealed carry laws on the local Sheriff’s office’s website, an interesting stipulation is found under section ‘E.’ Among other things, the Sheriff’s Office of Sonoma County asserts that an individual must be of “good moral character,” demanding three letters of reference to this effect. As libertarians, we undoubtedly find ourselves in opposition to government regulations of all kinds, especially when dealing with guns. However, a special piece of information makes this stipulation especially objectionable within the context of Sonoma County.

The website goes on to stipulate that the process for evaluating the morality of the CCW permit applier is ‘discretionary,’ meaning that any supposed moral faults in a wishful gun owner is sufficient cause for denial.

In 2013, Sonoma County Sheriff Erick Gelhaus murdered a 13 year old boy, Andy Lopez, in cold blood, believing the toy airsoft rifle the boy was carrying was a real AK-47. Perhaps more egregiously, Gelhaus was never charged, and continues to patrol the same neighborhood that he did prior to the killing, paid from the same pocket of local taxes that he was before.

If gun ownership is an issue of morality, let’s, at least, make it an honest issue of morality.

The end result of all gun restriction is, to put it briefly, the creation of a monopoly of violence and authority on behalf of the state. That this, especially in a gun-conscious area of the country, is done under the guise of safety is irrelevant. The harder it becomes for the gentry to own firearms, the more power the state holds over them. The assumption of those who find this imbalance of power reasonable is that the state is a body capable of using their power responsibly, and maintaining safety and order.

The question then becomes “Is the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office a capable body?”

My response is two-fold:

1. No organization dedicated to the safety of the populace can operate as such while permitting and excusing acts of inhumane violence. The death of Andy Lopez has many viewpoints; some believe that the child was ‘asking for it’ by carrying a replica firearm. This is the homicidal equivalent of saying that a young victim of sexual abuse was ‘asking for it’ because of some meaningless item of clothing. While some adults may commit suicide-by-cop while holding replica firearms, what we’re referring to here is a child holding a toy. More importantly, however, we are referring to an office that allowed the murderer of an innocent child to remain at his post, employed. This particular office, much like authorities in San Francisco, continue to stand accused of excessive force.

2. No organization funded through theft can operate under the guise of morality. If we adhere to the popular libertarian adage of “taxation is theft” (to which this author does), then we must view the Sheriff’s Office as a militia operating off of stolen money. Nothing of the sort can possibly be considered moral.

The answer, obviously, is no.

Some may respond that one case of excessive, fatal force isn’t enough to invalidate the Sheriff’s authority in the ‘concealed-carry’ department. Some may argue that the murder of Andy Lopez is not sufficient because his death was accidental, his own fault, etc. Those people, assuming they masquerade as libertarians, should change their titles immediately. Only totalitarians excuse the state’s monopoly of violence as deserved. Andy Lopez was a child, and respected the non-aggression principle, and was shot dead because of it. Perhaps he should have carried his letters of recommendation with him to prevent such a ‘righteous’ act.

The underlying point is that an immoral organization, an immoral state, has no right preventing people from defending themselves or exercising their legitimate, human right to self-defense. What use would it be, in California no less, trying to defend one’s own right to self-defense against a body who would so publicly and with so little recourse, violate it as they routinely have and continue to? And furthermore, what obligation do we, longtime, often lifelong, residents of our respective townships and homesteads across the nation, have to sit respectively as our civil liberties are curtailed, and the lives of our young are taken by an immoral band of murderous thieves?

* Evan Mack is a libertarian student in northern California. He enjoys music and crime documentaries.

The following two tabs change content below.

• Bio
• Latest Posts

Being Libertarian

The main BeingLibertarian.com account, used for editorials and guest author submissions. The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions. Contact the Editor at editor@beinglibertarian.email

Latest posts by Being Libertarian (see all)

• Ron Paul Revolution Takes Over The Libertarian Party - May 30, 2022
• Secession: The Lost Aspect of Federalism - April 16, 2022
• Democracy & Freedom: A Contradiction in Terms - February 15, 2022