Peruta v. County of San Diego: Ninth Circuit Ignores Second Amendment to

American Thinker ^ | June 10, 2016 | Herbert W. Titus and Robert J. Olson

[Kaslin]

A week shy of one year since oral argument was heard, and over six and a half years since the case was brought in October of 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision in Peruta v. County of San Diego. The Peruta case is not the only one challenging California concealed carry laws. Peruta was consolidated with Richards v. Prieto, a case involving Yolo County, California. (Additionally, several other similar cases such as Baker v. Kealoha out of Hawaii were stayed by the Ninth Circuit pending resolution of Peruta.)

Background

The case involves a challenge to California's concealed carry laws. When the case was brought, California law permitted unloaded open carry, but during the pendency of the case, that right was lost to the people of California. Therefore, California law now almost completely prevents ordinary people from carrying firearms in public – with the exception of a favored few categories of persons. The plaintiffs sued the San Diego County sheriff, challenging the state's "good cause" requirement to obtain a concealed carry license, which, as interpreted by San Diego, requires some very special threat of harm to the applicant.

District Court Litigation

In federal district court, the trial judge applied "intermediate scrutiny" to the challenged laws, deciding that the right to bear arms must yield to the common good – the "government['s] important interest in reducing ... the risks to other members of the public."

[Kaslin]

The rest of the title is Uphold Ban on Concealed Carry

[elpadre]

If the court believes the 2nd does not allow CCW, it clearly does not forbid it either. From their view it seems to state the 2nd is silent on CCW. However, I believe a little research will show past courts have upheld the right for CCW which is the proper interpretation.

[i_robot73]

How ‘bout we finally have a court case to get ‘figure out’ what the term ‘shall not be infringed’ means?

Seems the courts like to cherry pick which piece(s) of the Constitution they wish to discuss in case XYZ; nary a glance or whisper to the unseen/unspoken verbiage around their phrase du jour.

Same w/ the 14th: AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

The People should be able to gawk and marvel as the STUPIDITY of the Left to attempt to argue the word ‘not’ is as fluid as the word ‘is’ is...

[XHogPilot]

Well, the rest of the story, briefly mentioned in the reference article, is the State of California banned Open Carry in 2012 in any place other than what amounts to desolate areas. California State CCW "permits" are issued by the county sheriff, an extreme rarity except in a small percentage of counties. So, in California, NO to "Open Carry" and NO to "Concealed Carry". In other words, the 9th Circuit says NO to any Right to Bear Arms in California.

http://www.shouselaw.com/open-carry.html

If you'd like to know more, check http://www.calguns.net

While most will poo poo the State of California, we should all realize the US Supreme Court now "has the ball" and Justice Samuel Alito is no more. What starts in California, usually comes to all of America, much faster than anyone expects.

If the court believes the 2nd does not allow CCW, it clearly does not forbid it either. From their view it seems to state the 2nd is silent on CCW. However, I believe a little research will show past courts have upheld the right for CCW which is the proper interpretation

[Spitzensparkin1]

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.

Those who would be our Masters, the Fascists of the left, would have you believe that the 2nd Amendment gives citizens the right to own firearms.

It's purpose was to restrict any government abuse of our God given Rights which predate the Constitution, the Right to self defense, and the Right to throw off any government that would violate our Constitution and attempt to take away our Freedom!

9th Circuit go pound sand!

[elpadre]

an interesting aside: before and early in WWII, the Japanese were considering an invasion of the US mainland, California probably being the target area. The one thing which held them back was their understanding that every American home was protected by firearms.