The case is Dorr v. Weber, decided yesterday (some citations omitted); the court ordered the sheriff to grant the permit, but also wrote:
Paul [Dorr] was denied a permit precisely because Sheriff Weber believed that his free speech rights offended the majority of voters in Osceola County....
In denying Paul a concealed weapons permit, Sheriff Weber single handedly hijacked the First Amendment and nullified its freedoms and protections. Ironically, Sheriff Weber, sworn to uphold the Constitution, in fact retaliated against a citizen of his county who used this important freedom of speech and association precisely in the manner envisioned by the founding members of our Nation who ratified the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791. In doing so, this popularly elected Sheriff, who appears to be a fine man and an excellent law enforcement officer, in all other regards, blatantly caved in to public pressure and opinion and, in doing so, severely trampled the Constitution and Paul’s First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and association. This is a great reminder that the First Amendment protects the sole individual who may be a gadfly, kook, weirdo, nut job, whacko, and spook, with the same force of protection as folks with more majoritarian and popular views....
[Footnote:] Following trial, the court alerted the parties to the possibility that it might order Sheriff Weber to take a class to educate him on the First Amendment. It provided the parties with 10 days to file briefs relating to the court’s authority to order such remedial relief. Sheriff Weber did not file a brief.
Sheriff Weber’s dramatic and stunning failure to appreciate, and to protect and defend, Paul’s basic First Amendment rights, compels remedial relief.... Sheriff Weber ... must complete [a class that] ... must provide college level instruction on the United States Constitution, including — at least in part — a discussion of the First Amendment. Sheriff Weber shall attach his transcript or other proof of completion to the affidavit — Sheriff Weber must obtain a passing grade or obtain an otherwise satisfactory assessment of his participation in the class.
Much more at the link, including link to earlier post on this case.
it was actually just a blog post that itself was an excerpt of a court document (and of course I excerpted the excerpt), and lawyers (and judges) do not write newspaper articles. No doubt a few things got left out along the way. That's why I (and Eugene Volokh) put in links to the sources.
of the judge's writing, when lawyers are arguing over a legal point (or so I surmise), particularly over a broad right like freedom of speech, some of the facts that are interesting to us have little to do with interpreting the law. In other words, for legal purposes, it did not matter what Dorr said; what mattered is that Dorr said something, that something was protected by the First Amendment, and the Sheriff trampled on that by refusing to renew Dorr's concealed handgun permit (thus this was more about the 1A than the 2A).