Friday, May 12, 2017

Peruta Likely to be Heard by the Supreme Court

Rumors are flying that the Supreme Court to hear the appeal to the 9th Circuit decision on Peruta v. California.  It makes sense that the Court would agree to hear the appeal now that Justice Gorsuch is on the Court.  From
There is only one new relist this week – but oh, what a relist it is. Peruta v. California, 16-894, asks whether the Second Amendment entitles citizens to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense – including concealed carry when carrying firearms openly is forbidden by state law. Under California law, openly carrying a handgun outside the home is generally prohibited, but concealed carry is permissible with a license. Applicants for concealed-carry permits must demonstrate “good cause” to obtain a license, which some county sheriffs (the relevant decision-makers) interpret to include a desire to carry a handgun for self-defense. The San Diego County Sheriff, however, defines “good cause” to require a showing of a particularized need for self-defense.
We should know with certainty, in a few days.

The essence of the Peruta decision is that there is no independent right to keep and bear arms outside of the home. The original appeals decision held that because the open carrying of arms was generally prohibited in California, the County Sheriffs could not arbitrarily refuse to issue concealed carry permits. If they were allowed to do so, the right to carry arms outside the home for self defense would be neutered.

In the en banc decision, the Ninth ruled that there was no right to carry arms concealed outside of the home, and ignored the California ban on the open carry of arms.

It is unknown when the Supreme Court will hear the case. Presumably, it will be this year.

It is easy to speculate why the Court would agreed to hear Peruta now. With rumors of another justice leaving the court this spring, this may be the last chance that leftists on the court will have to emasculate the Heller decision.

Justice Kennedy has been the reliable swing vote on the court. If he is replaced by an originalist and textualist justice, strong support for the Second Amendment is likely.

©2017 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch


Anonymous said...

This is one reason I write contentious remarks on this site. It may give someone the argument they need to win in cases like this. If the government were to call up the constitutional militia we could expect in some areas that the local or state police might arrest them for violating local laws. In reality No body needs a permit. To keep and bear is a federally guaranteed right the states have no authority to control. to keep and bear can have no state imposed qualifiers attached to it. It is clear that our rights travel with us where ever we go in this country No one has to take their house with them when traveling, some homes just can not be moved so of course you can carry out side of your home, No one in their right mind leaves expensive guns in the rain to rust some times concealment is mandatory. and it is always optional. Our individual sovereign authority dictates each individuals choice of when, where, what and how to carry to hell with the ignorant bastards that think people are safe every where because they passed the laws that demand it. Only God speaks things into existence. God gave us the right of self defense. No cowardly prick or group of pricks have the right or constitutional authority to infringe on our right to keep and bear. If they do not like it I invite them to individually try to take my guns. the second amendment is one law for the entire country. and Is National Reciprocity. Shall Not be Infringed does not mean to be determined later. or by each party depending on elections. It is a ratified command to enforce the 26 words of the second amendment. if you want different word Ratify an amendment to change them.

jim said...

Exactly the terms I have lived by for the last 40 years I've been of legal age to own a pistol. FL forbids open carry and allows concealed carry if you ask permission and pay a tax. Those are two things I don't do when it comes to my protected rights as demanded by the second.

Capn Al said...

Not only is it extremely difficult to get a CCW, but it is very expensive. Very said situation. If it comes to my having to protect my property and family, let the invaders come, I'm ready and so is my family. God bless America!

Anonymous said...

If you do not have a valid address any where you are not considered a resident, but you are an American citizen, Your rights travel with you, No state has the authority to deny any of your federally guaranteed rights. None of these state laws are valid. Why don't they get the issue settled once and for all? Why don't the gun rights organizations argue these points and stop wasting members money on useless ineffective support of bad laws? answer the rotten attorneys would have to find something else to milk.

Anonymous said...

Frankly I am thoroughly disgusted with the willy nilly gun Rights groups that refuse to go to the wall and resolve the second amendment issue.