- Marionville mayor ‘kind of agreed’ with Kansas City shooter’s views
- Rev. Al Sharpton’s Easter message: Politically ‘crucified’ Obama has risen again
- Supreme Court to weigh challenge to ban on campaign lies
- UNICEF launches ‘Mr. Poo’ mascot in India to curb public defecation
- Teen taking selfie by train: ‘Wow, that guy just kicked me in the head’
- Goodbye, Afghanistan — hello, Africa: Air Force to shift as U.S. exits Middle East
- Iran mulls ban on vasectomies, decrease on abortions to bolster population
- CNN op-ed claims right-wingers ‘more deadly than jihadists’
- Classes resume at high school rocked by stabbings
- ABC News accuses Center for Public Integrity of stealing Pulitzer-winning work
MILLER: Court gives NRA a big win for concealed carry gun rights in California
Ninth Circuit decision in Petura v. San Diego sets up Supreme Court to resolve conflict between lower courts
Second Amendment advocates won a major victory on Thursday when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the individual right to bear arms applies outside the home.
Specifically, the court said that San Diego’s restrictive concealed carry laws that require citizens to prove a need to defend themselves are unconstitutional.
The case of Edward Peruta, et al v. County of San Diego, et al dealt with a concealed carry permitting process that made it virtually impossible for the plaintiffs to get a license. (California already has a total ban on open carry.)
Writing for the majority, Judge Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain concluded that “San Diego County’s ‘good cause’ permitting requirement impermissibly infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense.” The court reversed the district court’s decision.
The National Rifle Association (NRA) funded the plaintiffs’ legal battle. Paul Clement was the lead attorney in the case and argued it before the Ninth Circuit.
“One of reasons the NRA thought this was a good case to bring was precisely the combination of California state law banning open carry and San Diego policy on licensing for concealed carry made it quite definitive that an ordinary, lawful citizen with an interest in self defense couldn’t carry no matter what,” Mr. Clement told me in an interview late Thursday.
“This decision is a very significant case because most of the courts of appeals have upheld the carry laws,” the former solicitor general during the Bush administration explained.
“Once the Supreme Court said in Heller and McDonald that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to keep and bear arms, then you can no longer expect business as usual.”
This is the strongest, most throughly documented ruling at the federal appeals court level in opposition to the controversial laws on restricting carry in “may issue” states. The two majority judges said their view was “akin” to the Seventh Circuit’s interpretation in Moore v. Madigan, which overturned the ban on all carry rights in Illinois in Dec. 2012.
The ruling is in opposition to decisions in the Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits in Drake v. Filko (New Jersey), Woollard v. Sheridan (Maryland) and Kachalsky v. Cacace (New York.)
This case will likely push the Supreme Court to weigh in to work out the various conflicts on the circuit level. The high court has not ruled on what restrictions on an individual’s right to bear arms are constitutional.
Alan Gura is the lead attorney for all these other “bear” cases that are being brought by the Second Amendment Foundation.
“It’s a refreshing and important victory for common sense,” he told me Thursday about the San Diego decision. “States can regulate the carrying of handguns, but they cannot turn this fundamental right into a special privilege dispensed by the police at their whim.”
The San Diego sheriff requires a person to prove that he has certain circumstances that are outside the “mainstream” that necessitate carrying a gun for self defense. Concern for one’s personal safety alone does not satisfy the “good cause” measure.
So a Californian has to provide documentation such as a restraining order or letter from law enforcement determining a pressing need for self defense. Few pass such a high bar.
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
Emily Miller is senior editor of opinion for The Washington Times. She is the author of “Emily Gets Her Gun … But Obama Wants to Take Yours” (Regnery 2013). Miller won the 2012 Clark Mollenhoff Award for Investigative Reporting from the Institute on Political Journalism.
- MILLER: Mark Witaschek tax investigation follows D.C. conviction for muzzleloader bullet ammunition
- MILLER: Harry Reid's hypocrisy on 'Equal Pay Day': No women on top leadership staff
- MILLER: Maryland bathroom bill for transgenders is part of LGBT lobby for sex-change rights
- MILLER: Mark Witaschek surrenders to D.C. police 'Gun Offenders Registry'
- MILLER: Michelle Obama has media blackout in China while touting freedom of press
Latest Blog Entries
TWT Video Picks
By John R. Bolton
Reality calls for attaching Gaza to Egypt and the West Bank to Jordan
Get Breaking Alerts
- 'Culture of intimidation' seen in Nevada ranch standoff
- FISHER: Shades of Berlin in the South China Sea
- HURT: Wilson and Obama ... 100 years apart, but so alike
- Rand and Ron Paul ride to the rescue for Bundy in Nevada standoff with feds
- Atheists rush to stage Easter display: 'Jesus Christ is a myth'
- Secret U.S. assessments show Afghanistan not ready to govern on own
- U.S. military on high alert as Ukraine troops trade gunfire with pro-Russian militants
- Nevada Bundy ranch standoff could leave dirt on Harry Reid reputation
- CNN op-ed claims right-wingers 'more deadly than jihadists'
- IRS emails reveal discussion with Justice about suing nonprofits for election activities
Recent Letters to the Editor
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Bundy support demonstrates voters' distrust
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Obamacare disasters were avoidable
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Muhammad wouldn't condone Boston bombing
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: High heels: Hazardous to one's health?
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Marshall's comments hurt GOP, pro-lifers