MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Is This the Supreme Court's Next Big Second Amendment Case?

SCOTUS may soon decide whether or not to hear arguments in Peruta v. California.

Does the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms extend outside the home? Does it cover the right to carry concealed firearms in public? An important case now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court for possible review may provide definitive legal answers.

At issue in Peruta v. California is a state law that says conceal-carry permits will only be issued to those persons who have demonstrated to the satisfaction of their local county sheriff that they have a "good cause" for carrying a concealed firearm in public. What counts as a "good cause?" In the words of one San Diego official, "one's personal safety is not considered good cause." In effect, the local sheriff has vast discretion to pick and choose who gets a permit and who doesn't. Because the guidelines are unclear there is a severe risk of arbitrary enforcement. As one previous court ruling on the matter observed, "in California 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."

A constitutional challenge to this law inevitably followed. But that challenge suffered a major defeat in June 2016 when San Diego's "good cause" requirement was upheld by a divided 11-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on the grounds that the Second Amendment offers no protection for gun owners in this area. "Because the Second Amendment does not protect in any degree the right to carry concealed firearms in public," the 9th Circuit majority said, "any prohibition or restriction a state may choose to impose on concealed carry—including a requirement of 'good cause,' however defined—is necessarily allowed by the Amendment."

In January 2017 Edward Peruta and his fellow petitioners asked the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and overturn that 9th Circuit ruling. According to the Court's docket, their petition has now been considered by the justices in private conferences held on March 24, on March 31, on April 13, and on April 21, but no decision has yet been reached. This Friday, April 28, is the next private conference on the Court's calendar, and the justices are scheduled to consider the Peruta petition once again.

There are good reasons for the Court to take the case. While the 9th Circuit has endorsed a narrow interpretation of the Second Amendment's reach outside the home, other federal circuits have arrived at a different interpretation. In its 2012 decision in Moore v. Madigan, for example, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit struck down Illinois' statewide ban on carrying arms in public on the grounds that it violated the Second Amendment. "One doesn't need to be a historian to realize that a right to keep and bear arms in the eighteenth century could not rationally have been limited to the home," the 7th Circuit held.

That kind of circuit split is usually enough to get the Supreme Court's attention.

The justices may also be interested in settling a debate about federalism and the role of the federal courts that is lurking in the background of this case. For example, the gun control side insists that state and local officials are best positioned to balance the rights of gun owners against the specific local needs for more stringent firearms regulations. According to this view, federal judges should defer to these sorts of state and local decisions. By contrast, the gun rights side insists that the idea of constitutional liberty is turned on its head when a provision of the Bill of Rights is restricted in one part of the country and respected in another. This view urges the federal courts to consistently enforce the Second Amendment nationwide.

We may find out as soon as this Friday if the Supreme Court decides to take the case.

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.

  • Ron||

    what other rights within the constitution are limited to the home?

    Is the right to vote limited to the house no
    is the right to speak limited to the home no
    is the right to etc. ...... no none what so ever

    thats right none. all rights are valid everywhere in the country not just the home

  • SilentSkies||

    Aha! not the 3rd amendment! That one is limited to the home.

  • GeoffB1972||

    Wait! They'll soon announce that Ann Coulter has the right to say in her own home, just not in public.

  • albo||

    People should have to get written permission from the San Diego sheriff to give a speech to the Rotary Club.

  • plusafdotcom||

    But only if the Rotary Club meeting is NOT held in the speaker's home...

  • Rebel Scum||

    Does the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms extend outside the home? Does it cover the right to carry concealed firearms in public?

    Hm, let's check...

    A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

    Yes, it appears that it is illegal for the gov't to prevent people from doing the above mentioned things.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    I'll go further; a strict interpretation of the Second Amendment would have it illegal to require registration, to require licensing (and what else is a carry permit?), to ban any firearms that might be used effectively by a common soldier, or to tax the sale of any weapon whatsoever.

  • damikesc||

    Except SCOTUS, since Heller, has decided to basically ignore new laws that harshly restrict firearm ownership rights.

    Pass a law against abortion and SCOTUS will slap you hard. Do so for guns and they're usually OK with it.

  • Jury Nullification||

    No law is valid if it requires me to waive any fundamentally protected right in order to exercise any other right or privilege.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    What counts as a "good cause?" In the words of one San Diego official, "one's personal safety is not considered good cause."

    I'm glad to see that our benevolent masters are so solicitous of our welfare.

  • damikesc||

    I'm betting said sheriff packs heat everywhere he goes.

    But that's different.

  • Hank Phillips||

    A "good cause" is kinda like those "good faith" hunches Bush said made it OK for cops to search and shoot people.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    You're babbling again, Hank.

  • CE||

    Does the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms extend outside the home?

    I think that's what the "and" means. If it only applied inside the home, it would just say "keep".


    Does it cover the right to carry concealed firearms in public?

    I think that's what the "bear" means.

  • dantheserene||

    Clearly you can't see all the additional text that the 9th circuit can, or you would understand.

  • mpercy||

    "I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.
    Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "
    "But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.
    "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
    "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
    "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

  • Vitae Drinker||

    [prog-derp]"Oh, please, words don't mean what you think they mean. I'm sure those words self-identity as completely other words."[/prog-derp]

  • Brendan||

  • Brendan||

  • mpercy||

    Crap, I meant for my Humpty Dumpty post to follow-up to this comment.

  • DJK||

    The 9th Circuit's reasoning is that people didn't carry concealed at the time of the Constitution. It was open carry or nothing at all. It's pretty standard jurisprudence to look at historical context. And there's very little to suggest that concealed carry was what the Founders were thinking of.

    The dissent argues that, given CA's ban on open carry, banning concealed carry amounts to not allowing one to bear arms at all. That argument is much more convincing, not least because the historical case for open carry is pretty clear. However, the majority was able to punt by arguing that they were not asked to consider such questions.

    A little more going on legally than the author lets on.

  • DJK||

    Personally, I support carry, whether open or concealed. However, it's important to remember that the Constitution and the common law are not remotely libertarian.

  • Jury Nullification||

    "...the Constitution and the common law are not remotely libertarian."
    Does moral anarchy qualify.

  • DJK||

    I have absolutely no idea what to make of your comment....

  • Hank Phillips||

    I'm at a loss to make sense of either the comment or the riposte.

  • DaveSs||

    One of the facts central to the case for Moore v Madigan was the complete prohibition of bearing ready to use arms for self defense in Illinois.

    The 7th circuit's ruling did not specify the manner in which the legislature must remedy, only that it had to remedy.

    As you might expect, the Chicago block wanted quite possibly the worst may issue law in the country. They wanted people to have to take the 40 hour training course that Illinois LEOs have to do, and then apply for the permit that they probably would not be granted anyways because the applicant lacked proper cause.
    That particular bill got shot down by quite a few votes surprisingly.

  • DJK||

    Did the plaintiffs in that case raise the issue of complete inability to bear due to the open carry ban? That was not brought up in the Peruta case. Bad tactics.

  • DaveSs||

    The Illinois plaintiff's argument was that total prohibition on bearing ready to use firearms was unconstitutional.
    The remedy sought by the plaintiffs was to strike down two specific sections of Illinois law.
    The judges struck down those two sections, but stayed their ruling for 180 days to give Illinois the chance to pass legislation that would be constitutional (a deadline they missed actually).

    Peruta is a bit more complicated because California does actually allow for some form of public carry albeit under an entirely arbitrary standard.

  • DJK||

    I thought CA enacted full ban of open carry?

  • DaveSs||

    I'm kinda unclear on that myself.

    I think it used to be unloaded open anywhere in the state.
    Now it may only be unloaded open outside the incorporated limits of a town or some such.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    It is my understanding that there is NO open carry, even unloaded, in CA.

  • California Right To Carry||

    The decision in Moore v. Madigan did not say that states can ban Open Carry. The 7th circuit said that Illinois could prohibit concealed carry as per the Heller decision.

    "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152-153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489-490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251..." District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) at 2816

    "But the majority implicitly, and appropriately, rejects that suggestion by broadly approving a set of laws — prohibitions on concealed weapons..." Heller dissent at 2851

  • DaveSs||

    You are quoting from the dissent in Moore v Madigan. The dissent was inclined to say that Illinois was fine to ban all modes of public carry.

    The majority (two judges of a three judge panel) said this

    We are disinclined to engage in another round of historical analysis to determine whether eighteenth-century America understood the Second Amendment to include a right to bear guns outside the home. The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside...(stuff about how Illinois didn't present proof its unique restrictions were justified)...Nevertheless we order our mandate stayed for 180 days to allow the Illinois legislature to craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment as interpreted in this opinion, on the carrying of guns in public.

    So in a nutshell, while the majority opinion wrote much about concealed carry, it did not necessarily stipulate the mode of carry Illinois had to adopt, only that a complete ban on carrying was not permitted by the Constitution.
    However it allowed that Illinois could have "reasonable limitations" such as a ban in specific places, a training requirement, prohibition on felons and such. They also (if I read correctly) deemed that a 'just cause' limitation was not reasonable as self defense is as important outside the home as inside.

  • California Right To Carry||

    No, I am quoting from the majority decision in Moore v. Madigan.

    "And a state may be able to require "open carry" — that is, require persons who carry a gun in public to carry it in plain view rather than concealed. See District of Columbia v. Heller, supra, 554 U.S. at 626, 128 S.Ct. 2783..." Id at 938

    "626" is the pinpoint citation in the Bound Volumes which corresponds to:

    "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152-153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489-490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251..." District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) at 2816

  • DaveSs||

    The dissent in Moore had that exact same text within in it (absent some of the citations) so my mistake.

    In any case, I don't see how one can conclude that the Moore case said that open carry cannot be prohibited, but concealed carry can be prohibited. The majority mentioned open carry but a single time, and it did not seem to be in the context of a decision but rather more of an argument.

  • California Right To Carry||

    The Moore case said that Open Carry cannot be prohibited because of its citation to Heller which in turn said that Open Carry is the right guaranteed by the Constitution and which said that concealed carry can be prohibited (banned).

    Moreover, not a single cert petition since Moore has claimed that the Moore v. Madigan decision held that Open Carry can be banned in favor of concealed carry. The Peruta cert petition cites Moore twice, both times for the proposition that the 2nd Amendment exists outside of the home, which is not at issue in this case.

    The en banc decision in Peruta did not hold that the Second Amendment is limited to the home. It held that there is not a right of the general public to carry a handgun concealed in public, which is the question SCOTUS would be deciding were it to grant the cert petition.

    But it won't because SCOTUS has already decided that question.

  • ||

    The 9th Circuit's reasoning is that people didn't carry concealed at the time of the Constitution. It was open carry or nothing at all. It's pretty standard jurisprudence to look at historical context. And there's very little to suggest that concealed carry was what the Founders were thinking of.

    The fuck? Flintlock pistols were *at least* half a century old at the point the Convention, er, convened and the use/need of them for riders and seamen (as well as their use by Highwaymen and Pirates) was well known and understood. Wogdon & Barton, maker of the pistols that Burr shot Hamilton with set up shop in London in 1760. All this assumes the FF to be too ignorant to intellectually extend boot knives, daggers, and other such weapon-related subterfuge, not to mention crossbows into the realm of firearms. I'm sure a smaller weapon, better able to be concealed kept dry, never occurred to anyone.

    I guess I'm not disagreeing with you exactly as much as convincing myself that the 9th Circuit's awareness of history appears to be shitty at best.

  • DJK||

    It's been awhile since I read the decision, but there's a long discussion about the history IIRC.

  • ||

    Ah, I misread your misinterpretation without thinking about it. It's not so much a factual examination of the notion that people did/didn't carry concealed weapons at the time of The Constitution as much as a retrospective examination of legal opinion prior to the Constitution (and actually, rather, as a direct rebuttal of Heller which explored the right well after the Constitution as well).

    I stand by my previous assessment, however. You say 'long discussion' I say 'torturous justification', that's still essentially a "We can't consider their context or mindset precisely/properly, therefor, all bets are off." argument that doesn't, or shouldn't, begin hold water and wouldn't in any other context.

  • California Right To Carry||

    The main minority decision in Peruta v. San Diego referenced the Heller decision's citation to State v. Reid which said that regulations which result in the destruction of the right to bear arms are unconstitutional. The hypothetical regulation considered by the Reid Court was a ban on Open Carry coupled with concealed carry being allowed. The Reid Court held that scenario would result in the destruction of the right to bear arms.

    State v. Reid was cited six times by both the majority and minority opinions in Peruta v. San Diego and not a single one of the eleven judges had ever bothered to read that decision.

  • DJK||

    Yes. The dissent clearly has things right. The majority balked on answering any more than the immediate question before them.

  • California Right To Carry||

    The dissent cited a case which stood for the opposite of what the case said and you say that the dissent got it right. I don't think you understand how the law works.

  • DJK||

    What are you talking about? Of course a dissent came to a different conclusion than a majority. That is the nature of a dissent. What do you think you're saying? Because I can't make heads or tails of it.

  • California Right To Carry||

    DJK - The dissent disagreed with the majority's conclusion that the Second Amendment was an individual right unconnected with service in a militia. The dissent agreed with the majority's conclusion that prohibitions on concealed carry do not infringe on the Second Amendment.

    It isn't confusing if you read the decision.

    "But the majority implicitly, and appropriately, rejects that suggestion by broadly approving a set of laws — prohibitions on concealed weapons..." Heller dissent at 2851

    "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152-153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489-490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251..." District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) at 2816

  • Robbzilla||

    Umm. have they never heard of the Queen Anne pistol? It was a short little flintlock made in the 18th century and was idea for purposes of concealed carry.

  • Stoneman||

    Actually when the constitution was written most people carried concealed in the winter and open in the summer. Coats

  • Zeb||

    No, "bear" doesn't necessarily include carrying concealed. But at this point, in many situations, open carrying is going to attract more attention and be more disruptive that concealed, so one could argue that to have an effective right to bear arms one needs to be able to carry concealed.

  • DJK||

    Agreed completely. But at issue was whether there is a Constitutionally guaranteed right to concealed carry. The 9th Circuit makes a pretty decent argument that there's not. And they had a legal basis for not considering the open carry issue. Given their cowardice, I wouldn't be surprised to see a similar narrow ruling by SCOTUS.

  • Robbzilla||

    Funny thing is, the 2nd Amendment doesn't grant a right. It limits laws made by the federal government. The 14th extends those limitations to state and local governments.

    But hey, the 9th isn't exactly known for giving a shit about the Constitution.

  • Longtobefree||

    Please explain how bear does not include concealed carry. As you do, please consider all arms, not just modern pistols. Almost every man at the time of the constitutional convention carried edged weapons, more often concealed.
    There is nothing in the definition of "bear" that excludes other than open carrying.
    Merriam-Webster, Cambridge English Dictionary, Funk & Wagnall

  • California Right To Carry||

    When the Second Amendment was enacted in 1791, the use of a concealed weapon to kill one's opponent was murder and not subject to a pardon unless one's opponent had first tried to stab or shoot one, and even then it was not pardonable if this occurred during the course of mutual combat even if that use was to save one's life.

    If one was carrying a concealed weapon he was required to produce his weapon and to not attack. He was required to give his opponent the opportunity to arm himself or decline combat.

    The use of a concealed weapon was considered to be cowardly and criminal by the Framers of the Second Amendment and those who voted to enact the Second Amendment.

    By 1868, the mere carriage of a concealed weapon was criminal. And since the 2nd Amendment was incorporated against the states via the 14th Amendment (enacted in 1868), concealed carry is not a right.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    Murder is murder, then as well as now.

    I'd like to see the cites for the laws that made murder with a concealed weapon a more serious crime than with one carried openly.

    Yes, there was a stigma against carrying concealed at the time, and some state Constitutions allowed for the regulation of concealed carry.

    But, it doesn't matter when the 2A was "incorporated", the language of the 2A says to "bear" (which means carry) so it should protect concealed carry even over state law.

  • California Right To Carry||

    AZ Gunowner - You do not understand. Under otherwise identical circumstances, what was manslaughter became manslaughter if the weapon used had been concealed.

    It matters what the Framers of the 14th Amendment and the people who voted to enact the 14th Amendment into law understood what the Second Amendment to mean at the time of the ratification of the 14th Amendment.

    It matters because when a state or local law is being challenged, it is the meaning of the Second Amendment as it was understood in 1868 that is controlling.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    "what was manslaughter became manslaughter ",

    so nothing changed, unless you meant it became murder.

    But, I would like to see the citation for the law at the time. Perhaps that was the case but it would likely vary on a state to state basis.

    Also, you've offered nothing from the adoption of the 14A to suggest that the Republican Senators who passed this law had any specific intention to protect only open carry.

  • Robbzilla||

    " the use of a concealed weapon to kill one's opponent was murder and not subject to a pardon unless one's opponent had first tried to stab or shoot one"

    Which is exactly how things go today. It's never (AFAIK) been legal to kill someone, but it is legal to defend oneself, and your statement exactly illustrates that.

    The language above shows that it was legal to carry concealed, as long as you used said weapon for defensive purposes.

  • California Right To Carry||

    Robbzilla - And yet that is not "exactly how things go today" which is yet another reason why concealed carry should be banned.

  • GeoffB1972||

    But carry is. You can't limit concealed carry unless you allow open carry and take it as the exercise of a Constitutional right, not a public threat.

  • Cy||

    Theoretically, you can't limit either. Limiting would be infringement. I'm getting really sick of everyone arguing over a couple of inches, on both sides, when we didn't just start sliding down the slippery slope, we dove off that cliff a hundred years ago.

    The framers made it damn clear when they wrote it. Considering they'd just got done fighting off a tyrannical government using any means necessary, I really don't see how anyone without trying to do mental back flips, can see the history and the Bill of Rights and still support any restrictions on weapons a man can carry.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    To "bear" arms means to carry them.

    You can carry openly or concealed and both are carrying. There is no stipulation in the 2A as to the manner of "bearing".

    Some State Constitutions at the time of the Founding and since have granted their legislature the power to regulated concealed carry but the 2A should trump those.

  • creefer||

    If self defense isn't cause, what fuck is?

  • DaveSs||

    The size of your donation to the sheriff's reelection campaign.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    ...And, in San Diego County, that option has been taken off the table.

    As a justice writing an opinion, I would take pleasure in name checking San Diego and its ilk as the reason that this privilege of being the arbiter of who gets to enjoy what constitutional right is being taken out of local hands.

  • ThomasD||

    "In the words of one San Diego official, "one's personal safety is not considered good cause."

    Apparently the only upside to impunity is honesty.

  • California Right To Carry||

    "The policy underlying the prohibition against concealed weapons is based on the protection of those persons who may come into contact with a weapon bearer. If a weapon is not concealed, one may take notice of the weapon and its owner and govern oneself accordingly, but no such opportunity for cautious behavior or self-preservation exists for one encountering the bearer of a concealed weapon. In light of this policy, the question whether a particular weapon was concealed should be considered from the point of view of one approaching the location of the weapon, and the intent of the defendant as to concealment should not be considered, since a defendant's innocent intent does not make a concealed weapon any more visible." People v. Mitchell, 209 Cal. App. 4th 1364 - Cal: Court of Appeal, 4th Appellate Dist., 1st Div. (2012) at 1371.

  • California Right To Carry||

    "[A] right to carry arms openly: "This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations."" District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) at 2809

    "In Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the "natural right of self-defence" and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right...Likewise, in State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann. 489, 490 (1850), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that citizens had a right to carry arms openly: "This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations."" District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) at 2809

  • California Right To Carry||

    "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152-153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489-490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251..." District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) at 2816

    "But the majority implicitly, and appropriately, rejects that suggestion by broadly approving a set of laws — prohibitions on concealed weapons..." Heller dissent at 2851

  • Unemployed Armenian Tranny||

    "Because the Second Amendment does not protect in any degree the right to carry concealed firearms in public,"

    Walking backwards into a Nation-wide Constitutional Carry verdict.

    I love it.

  • TimothyLane||

    It's time for the 9th Circus to get slapped down again, and not just on guns. Or, better yet, kick California (at least the coastal counties) out. They don't seem to be Americans anyway.

  • hpearce||

    "Does the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms extend outside the home? Does it cover the right to carry concealed firearms in public?"

    to the first , yes - as long as they don't violate rules setup by other property owners.

    To the second, technically yes - if you view public property as "private" property owned by the public. But that would also mean there are no definitive rights to many things - just as in example one above where the woners may define the rules.

    But to the extend that people are seen as having a right to protest on public property, etc, then they very well could have a right to carry arms too.

  • Barry Gold||

    My take as a no-longer-doctrinaire libertarian(*) is that a state should have the ability to limit concealed carry _within reason_, but _only_ if it permits nearly unrestricted open carry. If a state wants to limit open carry, then they should allow concealed carry for any law-abiding citizen. And vice-versa.

    Another way of looking at it: the 2nd amendment recognizes the right to keep _and bear_ (carry) arms. So yes, you have the right to carry arms except on private property where the owner says "no firearms allowed". But the state may reasonably choose between open and concealed carry.

    Allowing a sheriff to say, "Well, almost nobody qualifies" is *not* within reason.

    (*) Note the small ell.

  • Longtobefree||

    "But the state may reasonably choose between open and concealed carry."

    How so? If they choose concealed carry, many weapons useful to a militia member are prohibited. If they choose open carry, many weapons designed to be carried in a scabbard/holster/other, but still useful to a militia member are prohibited.
    May a state choose between amplified free speech and non-amplified free speech?
    May a state choose between worship within a building and worship outside of a building?
    May a state even choose anything about a federal constitution right?

  • ranrod||

    why are my posts not showing up??

  • ranrod||

    Marxists and Islamists who infect our federal government plus the media prostitutes who protect them will gleefully lie, falsify, fabricate, slander, libel, deceive, delude, bribe, and treasonably betray the free citizens of the United States into becoming an unarmed population. Unarmed populations have been treated as slaves and chattel since the dawn of history.

    The Second Amendment foes lying about gun control - Firearms are our constitutionally mandated safeguard against tyranny by a powerful federal government.

    Only dictators, tyrants, despots, totalitarians, and those who want to control and ultimately to enslave you support gun control.

  • ranrod||

    No matter what any president, senator, congressman, or hard-left mainstream media hookers tell you concerning the statist utopian fantasy of safety and security through further gun control: They are lying. If their lips are moving, they are lying about gun control. These despots truly hate America..

    These tyrants hate freedom, liberty, personal responsibility, and private property. But the reality is that our citizens' ownership of firearms serves as a concrete deterrent against despotism. They are demanding to hold the absolute power of life and death over you and your family. Ask the six million Jews, and the other five million murdered martyrs who perished in the Nazi death camps, how being disarmed by a powerful tyranny ended any chances of fighting back. Ask the murdered martyrs of the Warsaw Ghetto about gun control.

    Their single agenda is to control you after you are disarmed. When the people who want to control you hold the absolute power of life and death over your family, you have been enslaved.

    Will we stand our ground, maintaining our constitutionally guaranteed Second Amendment rights, fighting those who would enslave us?

    American Thinker

  • ranrod||

    If you are one that believes the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is lawful and constitutional, then you have believed a lie and a myth that Jefferson warned about. The States still retain their rights to this day to defy the federal judiciary, which has become an oligarcy. We just need strong statesmen as governors and legislatures to make that stand!

    In writing to William Jarvis, Jefferson said, "You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy."

    The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped."

  • AZ Gunowner||

    It was the SC that started protecting the 1st Amendment from state infringement in the early 1900's.

    Are you saying that the states should be free to ignore the protections of the Bill of Rights if they so choose?

  • Galane||

    Yet another iteration of the "Showing strength only invites attack" idiocy. Like the stupid anti-SDI gibberish about how being able to shoot down Soviet and Chinese nuclear missiles would only incite them to launch them against us.

    The 10th Amendment makes it very clear that what's in the Constitution before it is to be applied as-is. Infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not allowed by any level of government.

    There's NO wiggle room provided by the 2nd, 10th or any of the rest of the bill of rights.

  • California Right To Carry||

    "The protections enumerated in the Second Amendment, no less than those enumerated in the First, are not absolute prohibitions against government regulation. Heller, 554 U. S., at 595, 626-627. Traditionally, States have imposed narrow limitations on an individual's exercise of his right to keep and bear arms, such as prohibiting the carrying of weapons in a concealed manner or in sensitive locations, such as government buildings. Id., at 626-627; see, e.g., State v. Kerner, 181 N. C. 574, 578-579, 107 S. E. 222, 225 (1921). But these narrow restrictions neither prohibit nor broadly frustrate any individual from generally exercising his right to bear arms." Voisine v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2272, 2291 (U.S. 2016) Justice Thomas dissenting.

    According to the NRA lawyers in their Peruta v. California cert petition, the justices have already held that Open Carry can be banned in favor of concealed carry. Justice Thomas would disagree.

    As did all nine justices in the Heller decision"

    "But the majority implicitly, and appropriately, rejects that suggestion by broadly approving a set of laws — prohibitions on concealed weapons..." Heller dissent at 2851

  • Stoneman||

    What part of "Shall not be enfringed" Is so hard for the left to understand. Thank God for Gorsuch. Next is Ginsberg. If we can fill the SCOTUS with some intelligence, then we can start making American great again.

  • Robbzilla||

    I sincerely hope that Ginsberg is next. The wailing from the left shall be epic!

  • TxJack 112||

    I don t understand how this case has not been reversed already.. Saying one person, in this case the Sheriff, gets to decide who is and who is not allowed to carry a firearm is the epitome of totalitarian government. The 2nd amendment is a right in the Constitution and no where does it say you have a right to bear arms as long as the government says it is okay. That is exactly what it is supposed to prevent.

  • California Right To Carry||

    TxJack - The Sheriff does not get "to decide who is and who is not allowed to carry a firearm..." The California legislature delegated the authority to issue a license to carry a handgun concealed to San Diego Sheriff Gore once the California Attorney General had signed off on the application. Sheriff Gore did not, and does not, have the authority under California law to issue a license to openly carry a handgun and California does not have long gun Open Carry permits.

    The Peruta plaintiffs as well as the plaintiffs in the companion case of Richards v. Prieto claimed that they were entitled to concealed carry permits under the Second Amendment. Moreover, they claimed that states can ban Open Carry in favor of concealed carry.

    Read the en banc decision in Peruta v. San Diego and it will give you a partial explanation as to why concealed carry is not a right under the Second Amendment.

    It is rare that a court issues a decision consistent with the Second Amendment. The en banc decision in Peruta v. San Diego was the most faithful to the Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller.

  • Hank Phillips||

    In Austin, Brave New Books offered discounts to anyone openly packing. The landlord, doubtless fearing Thought Police, terminated their lease. The entire town is plastered with lengthy admonitions glued to windows to the effect that any private citizen legally packing is as welcome in there as a queer couple wanting a wedding cake in Landover Baptist Oregon!
    How ironic if the courts were to also dish out sauce for the gander!

  • jerryg1018||

    The Ninth Appellate Court is one of the most reversed by SCOTUS. ( 80% on average. 70% is the average for the full 13 appellate courts ) In this particular case it reversed itself. The case was heard by a three judge panel of the 9th and struck the law down. The state appealed asking for an en blanc hearing by the full court. An eleven judge panel then reversed the three judge panel and upheld the law.
    The case is certainly ripe for the Supreme Court.

  • California Right To Carry||

    Years after the Heller decision, Justice Thomas explained why the Heller decision said concealed carry could be prohibited.

    "The protections enumerated in the Second Amendment, no less than those enumerated in the First, are not absolute prohibitions against government regulation. Traditionally, States have imposed narrow limitations on an individual's exercise of his right to keep and bear arms, such as prohibiting the carrying of weapons in a concealed manner or in sensitive locations, such as government buildings. But these narrow restrictions neither prohibit nor broadly frustrate any individual from generally exercising his right to bear arms."

  • California Right To Carry||

    Not to worry. My California Open Carry appeal is up next and the 9th circuit court of appeals will be forced to decide whether or not the Second Amendment applies past the doors to our home. A question the en banc panel in Peruta v. San Diego did not decide and a question that Justice Thomas' dissent to denial of cert said should have been decided by the en banc panel.

    Charles Nichols
    President of California Right To Carry
    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online