Guns

Federal Court Rejects California Appeal, Reaffirms Second Amendment Victory Over Conceal-Carry Restrictions

|

Earlier this year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit handed Second Amendment advocates a major victory by invalidating San Diego, California's requirement that conceal-carry permits only be issued to those gun owners who could show they had a "good cause" for carrying a concealed gun in public. According to the government officials charged with enforcing that provision, it should be noted, "one's personal safety is not considered good cause." Writing for the majority in Peruta v. County of San Diego, 9th Circuit Judge Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain denounced that government's approach as a violation of the Second Amendment. "In California," Judge O'Scannlain observed, "the only way that the typical responsible, law-abiding citizen can carry a weapon in public for the lawful purpose of self-defense is with a concealed-carry permit. And, in San Diego County, that option has been taken off the table."

San Diego Sheriff William Gore then surprised many gun control activists by declining to file an appeal and saying he would obey the court's decision. The state of California did not like the sound of that, however, and promptly filed its own request to intervene in the case. In effect, the state asked the court's permission to take the reins and launch a gun control appeal of its own.

But that request fell flat today at the 9th Circuit. "Considering each of the relevant factors," the 9th Circuit said, "we conclude that the movants have not met the heavy burden of demonstrating 'imperative reasons' in favor of intervention on appeal."

The upshot is that with both San Diego and the state government now out of the picture, there is no longer any party left with potential standing to challenge the 9th Circuit's decision. Peruta's holding that "the right to bear arms includes the right to carry an operable firearm outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense" is now the law of the land in both California and the rest of the territory covered by the 9th Circuit.

NEXT: Annual Report: Pension Liabilities Are Getting Even Worse

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Wow nice cock block by the sheriff. That’s actually a sneaky tactic that could be repeated in a place like Colorado or New York.

  2. …there is no longer any party left with potential standing to challenge the 9th Circuit’s decision.

    WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN? Won’t someone please think of the children’s standing?

    1. The children won’t have or even be standing after these gun nutters have their way!

      1. So everybody whose a law abiding gun owner is a child killer? Blanket statement much?

  3. So does this mean county sheriffs in CA have to shall-issue CCWs now? Because if it doesn’t, what’s the point?

    1. Not just them. Hawaii too, every jurisdiction within th ehuge 9th circuit.

      This is a HUGE win.

      1. According to the panel who rejected the request for a reconsideration, the original ruling only applies to San Diego County.

        1. So, not all of CA (or the 9th Circuit) is covered – yet. I would imagine that the Peruta case has opened a floodgate of litigation targeting concealed carry policies in other counties.

          1. From the opinion:

            Moreover, as explained in more detail below, see Part IV, infra, no law or regulation other than San Diego County’s good cause policy has been invalidated, “drawn in question,” or placed “in jeopardy” by the panel opinion ? notwithstanding San Diego County’s claim that state statutes were under “back door attack” or the dissent’s insistence that California state law is “in jeopardy.”

            1. This is the 9th circuit, appeals are over, why doesn’t it apply immediately everywhere in the 9th circuit?

              I now there’s another case from Hawaii still pending, but I thought it had been settled in light of Peruta.

              I is confoozed.

              1. I think the idea is that San Diego had a pretty specific policy which made it essentially impossible to exercise the bearing arms portion of “keep and bear arms” (can’t open carry by CA law, can’t get a concealed carry by San Diego policy). So such extreme policies are definitely out. I don’t know if many other places have such policies. I would imagine that policies which are still highly restrictive, but not quite as restrictive, are not affected by Peruta. However, the floodgates are open after this case. There will be lawsuits filed targeting less extreme restrictions, etc. It’s just gonna take awhile.

                1. Also, any jurisdiction which DOES have laws which are exactly as restrictive as San Diego’s is on the wrong side of this suit. They’ll either need to moderate their policy to some extent or face lawsuits in district courts which they should lose immediately based on this precedent. I have no idea how many jurisdictions in the 9th have this sort of concealed carry policy.

                  1. I hate to continually reply to myself but, as always, Volokh has some good insight.

                    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..and-baker/

                    Pay particular attention to the last few comments regarding what’s happening with the Hawaii case, etc. It seems that the 9th is considering en banc hearing of the Hawaii case, in which case it’s not bound by the 3 judge panel’s decision in Peruta.

  4. So lack of standing helped the cause of gun rights?!
    I haz a confuze.

  5. Tears…..so many salty ham flavored tears! Mmmmmmm!

    “Go fuck yourself San Diego”!

    /Burgundy

  6. The upshot is that with both San Diego and the state government now out of the picture, there is no longer any party left with potential standing to challenge the 9th Circuit’s decision.

    If you don’t count voters filing a citizen initiative, then you’re right, no party is left with a potential standing.

    1. I doubt they will, most voters can’t even find out where they’re local polling station even is.

  7. According to the government officials charged with enforcing that provision, it should be noted, “one’s personal safety is not considered good cause.”

    So, I trust these “officials charged with enforcing” are not permitted to carry weapons.

    1. When they said “one’s personal safety” they meant civilians. A law enforcement officer’s personal safety is paramount.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.