Torrance’s strict gun control laws have been loosened by two separate, but related legal cases that were resolved with so little fanfare that even lawyers who follow the issue closely were unaware of the changes.

The most far-reaching of the two court cases affected jurisdictions in nine Western states, including the city of Torrance. The other involved the repeal of antiquated municipal ordinances dating from 1950 that remained on the books even though they violated state and federal law. Those ordinances were targeted by a gun rights activist who took on the city — and won.

Significantly, the city has begun issuing carry concealed weapons licenses in the wake of a landmark 2014 court decision that struck down a requirement that members of the public needed “good cause” before receiving such a permit.

In that case, Peruta v. San Diego, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that any law-abiding citizen has the right to carry a handgun for lawful protection in public.

“The Peruta opinion has persuaded many jurisdictions the appropriate policy choice is to allow people to get the CCW (licenses),” said Long Beach-based attorney Chuck Michel, who represents the National Rifle Association in the state and argued the case before the court.

Torrance is among those jurisdictions because the city required an “individualized, concrete threat” before it would issue a CCW permit. In essence, while CCW applicants still must demonstrate “good cause” before receiving one, that bar is not set so high as to require a concrete threat to personal safety.

Former Torrance Police Chief John Neu said in 2012 that he had approved just one CCW permit since becoming chief in 2006. The department had received only about a dozen CCW applications during that time, largely because the strict requirements dissuaded most from even bothering to apply.

But in an indication of how much the climate has changed, since late 2014 Torrance has issued 17 CCW permits while denying just five.

“This action puts Torrance with a number of other cities in the tip of this national discussion about the right to bear arms,” said Michel, who was unaware of the abrupt policy change in the city until he was informed by the Daily Breeze.

Presumably, the decision to keep the policy switch under the radar occurred because cities like Torrance could well be flooded with CCW applications were it more widely known, Michel theorized.

Typically, about 2 to 5 percent of people in any given jurisdiction want a CCW, permit Michel said.

After the court decision, Orange County was forced to allocate about $8 million to hire investigators to conduct background checks on CCW applicants, he said.

Yet there’s no guarantee the decision will stand.

The decision by a three-member panel is being reviewed “en banc” by the entire 15-judge appellate court and could be reversed as jurisdictions like Torrance are well aware.

“After consultation with outside counsel, we continue to review and process CCW applications and the statutory ‘good cause’ requirement through the lens of the Peruta decision,” Police Chief Mark Matsuda said in an emailed statement.

“The permits that have been issued during this time are for six-month increments and can be rescinded if the Court of Appeal reverses the three-judge panel’s decision.”

Unconstitutional city law

The second court case involved gun rights activist Mindy Costa, who grew up in the city and graduated in 1996 from Torrance High School.

After spending 11 years in the Army, including a tour of duty in Iraq, Costa returned to her hometown with the goal of taking criminal justice classes at El Camino College. She considered applying to the Torrance Police Department to become a cop.

At the same time, Costa became active in South Bay Open Carry, a movement whose members favor openly carrying firearms in public.

To avoid potential law enforcement issues, the group coordinated its activism with the likes of the Torrance Police Department.

That backfired on Costa, however, when in November 2011 she gave police a heads-up about an open-carry event at a local restaurant.

Costa and two other activists were followed by undercover Torrance officers and eventually pulled over by a Lomita sheriff’s deputy for carrying a concealed weapon in a vehicle, even though she contended the weapon in question was in a locked container as state law required.

She eventually was charged with a misdemeanor, but Costa, arguing that the law was at best misapplied — she bluntly contends she was framed — refused a plea bargain in the case, triggering a lengthy criminal and civil legal odyssey.

“The whole thing was incredibly set up,” Costa said. “Last time I checked this is still America and I can put a gun in my car as I abide with state law.”

In the legal maneuvering that followed, Costa also was eventually charged under a pair of 1950 city ordinances that she contended effectively prohibited the carrying of firearms in Torrance — even if they were carried in accordance with state law.

In fact, her civil attorney contended the old laws not only violated state law, but were also unconstitutional because they effectively banned gun ownership in the city.

Jason Davis of Mission Viejo-based Davis & Associates, who represented Costa, said he wasn’t surprised the old laws were still on the books; government agencies often fail to perform basic housekeeping to get rid of outdated ordinances.

“What was surprising was that they were actually enforcing them,” he said. “I don’t think they were aware until we notified them that it was unconstitutional.”

Nevertheless, it took months of lawsuit threats before the City Council got around to repealing the old laws — along with a host of others including one that banned unmarried couples from living together — in August 2014.

But when it did so, there was no staff report on the council agenda and no information provided about the basis for the action.

“They do it quietly so no one knows what’s going on,” Davis said. “I don’t think anybody wants to tell folks they’ve violated the law for years.”

It’s unknown how many other people may have been convicted under the unlawful municipal statute.

In the meantime, to dispense with the criminal case, Costa reluctantly agreed to plead no contest to the state charge, paid a $600 fine and performed 60 hours of community service.

Consequently, both criminal charges were dismissed and wiped from her record as if they never occurred, which is something she had sought all along. And at the same time, Costa’s activism got rid of what her criminal defense attorney, Long Beach-based Jason Shyres, called a “stupid statute.”

“They don’t really give a crap about the constitutionality of the statute,” he said. “They basically treated her like a criminal. It was pretty harsh. I thought they should have given her a little more respect.”

Costa moved out of the state within six months of her arrest; today, she lives in Arizona, which has far more liberal gun laws than California.

And, although it was unrelated to her case, Costa said she was “gratified” to hear that Torrance also has liberalized its attitude toward CCW permits after the Ninth Circuit decision, given that her experience set her back an estimated $30,000 in legal fees.

“The city’s stepping in the right direction,” Davis said. “You’re seeing them take two steps in the right direction to benefiting citizens and guaranteeing them their constitutional rights.”