Tuesday, June 27, 2017

Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Peruta Case on Second Amendment

In Peruta v. California, the Ninth Circuit held that the right to carry concealed arms outside the home was not protected by the Second Amendment. The Ninth refused to consider that the ability to carry openly was prohibited by California law, thus nullifying the right to carry outside of the home. On Monday, 26 June, the Supreme Court officially denied the petition for a write of certiorari. The Ninth Circuit denial of Second Amendment rights outside the home will stand.                           

From politico.com:

The Supreme Court declined to review a case about the right to carry firearms outside the home, but two justices publicly dissented from their colleagues' decision not to take up the issue.

The high court said Monday it would not hear a National Rifle Association-supported legal challenge by California resident Edward Peruta, who challenged a state law limiting gun-carrying permits to those showing "good cause" and a San Diego County policy that says concern about personal safety is not sufficient to fulfill the requirement.

Gun rights advocates say the limits violate the Constitutional right to bear arms.
Justices Thomas and Gorsuch dissented. Both Justices held that Peruta should have been heard by the court. Four justices are required to agree to take a case. Justices Thomas and Gorsuch voted to hear the case. It is possible that another justice also voted to hear Peruta, but chose not to dissent.  Clearly, there was no fourth justice in favor, or the case would have been scheduled. The dissent is well written.  Here is an excerpt from the dissent by Justice Thomas:

We should have granted certiorari in this case. The approach taken by the en banc court is indefensible, and the petition raises important questions that this Court should address. I see no reason to await another case.


The en banc court’s decision to limit its review to whether the Second Amendment protects the right to concealed carry—as opposed to the more general right to public carry—was untenable. Most fundamentally, it was not justified by the terms of the complaint, which called into question the State’s regulatory scheme as a whole. See First Amended Complaint ¶63 (“Because California does not permit the open carriage of loaded firearms, concealed carriage with a [concealed carry] permit is the only means by which an individual can bear arms in pub­lic places”); id., ¶74 (“States may not completely ban the carrying of handguns for self-defense”). And although the complaint specified the remedy that intruded least on the State’s overall regulatory regime—declaratory relief and an injunction against the sheriff ’s restrictive interpreta­tion of “good cause”—it also requested “[a]ny further relief as the Court deems just and proper.” Id., ¶152. 

Nor was the Ninth Circuit’s approach justified by the history of this litigation. The District Court emphasized that “the heart of the parties’ dispute” is whether the Second Amendment protects “the right to carry a loaded handgun in public, either openly or in a concealed man­ner.” Peruta v. County of San Diego, 758 F. Supp. 2d 1106, 1109 (SD Cal. 2010). As the Ninth Circuit panel pointed out, “[petitioners] argue that the San Diego County policy in light of the California licensing scheme as a whole violates the Second Amendment because it precludes a responsible, law-abiding citizen from carrying a weapon in public for the purpose of lawful self-defense in any man­ner.” 742 F. 3d, at 1171. The panel further observed that although petitioners “focu[s]” their challenge on the “li­censing scheme for concealed carry,” this is “for good reason: acquiring such a license is the only practical ave­nue by which [they] may come lawfully to carry a gun for self-defense in San Diego County.” Ibid. Even the en banc court acknowledged that petitioners “base their argument on the entirety of California’s statutory scheme” and “do not contend that there is a free-standing Second Amend­ment right to carry concealed firearms.” 824 F. 3d, at 927.
The refusal to hear Peruta means that a Supreme Court case about the right to carry outside the home may not happen for a considerable period.

It makes the passage of a national reciprocity bills that protect the exercise of Second Amendment rights across the nation, more urgent. There is ample precedent for the federal government's ability to require states to observe a federal standard for carry permits. It has already done so with the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA).  Courts in New York City and the District of Columbia Court of Appeals have upheld the law.

It would be a small step from requiring States to recognize retired police officers carry permits, to requiring that States recognize the carry rights of people who have those rights in other states. No LEOSA Court cases have been appealed to the Supreme Court.

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

Gun Watch


Damn Yankee said...

One may hope a change in composition of the justices will result in a change in the future direction of this court. But, Heller aside, THIS case is reason why no self-respecting lover of Freedom should ever put their faith in SCOTUS!

Anonymous said...

We know that while Scalia was still alive, there were not enough votes on the Supreme Court for the right to bear arms. Gorsuch is but Scalia's replacement, so even if he turns out to be strongly pro-gun, there will be no more pro-bearing-arms votes than before. One can speculate that perhaps he might be able to sway his former mentor Kennedy, but it is safer to assume otherwise.

It may therefore be a good thing that SCOTUS didn't take the case - better to wait until further turn-over on the court.

Anonymous said...

To bad I have not kept an accurate record of the incompetent rulings by the supreme court and there are many. If you can not carry out side of your home, how do you get a new purchase home. How do you get to your place to hunt. will everyone have to make a target range in their own home because they can not carry to a range? If intelligent people decide to leave the state of California and move to another state do they leave their weapons behind? to keep and bear is to own and carry. the ninth amendment is your right to choose where to and when to carry, State governments have no authority to add words to the second amendment or define its meaning. If I can carry anywhere in Arizona, Tennessee or Wyoming. to deny my right to carry in California is to deny my second amendment right by national origin a federal civil rights violation because the supreme court has ruled my rights travel with me. rights are federal law. Gibbons v Ogden 1824 USSC "when a state law and a federal law are in conflict the federal law is supreme". the last time I checked the second amendment is a federally guaranteed right, that means it is a guaranteed right in all States, possessions and territories of the united states. No state has the authority to deny a federal right. the supreme court is required to protect that right time to charge the court with malfeasants in office. the court is required to hear a case on a constitutional question between the states and the federal government.re submit with a threat of impeachment.

Anonymous said...

I would bet most if not all of those judges carry even in the bath room and the shower. that kind of chicken s*it trash think they are above everyone else and fear their own shadow.

Anonymous said...

MSN article today says Gorsuch is pushing to hear the second amendment case. that would certainly prove if he is the constitutionalist he claims he is. the constitutional original intent only has 26 words in it and American laws requires on those 26 words to be considered. Focusing on Shall Not Be Infringed. He will have a hard time proving those words mean anything else. then taking in the tenth amendment. He will not be able to find any authority for the states to amend the second amendment. Then he will have to prove that the ninth amendment does not guarantee our un-enumerated right to freedom of choice. Now if he understands original intent he would have to admit that the second amendment was written for the entire country and is in fact National reciprocity. He will have to make it clear that the bill of rights are rights not privileges and rights can not be permitted, taxed, licensed, or manipulated by the political whims of politicians or individual states. Gorsuch claims the constitution is the supreme law of this land and must be enforced as written. If you do not like what is written then change what is written, until what is written is changed, what is written is required to be enforced. the word SHALL is a very strong legal term it is an absolute command. the word INFRINGE is a word that means all inclusive. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Is an absolute command to not change anything and that the 26 words of the second amendment are written to be enforced without any other consideration. this fact would strike down all laws and acts in existence then congress would have to propose an amendment to change one word in the second amendment. Simple fact the states can not amend the constitution. Only the citizens of the entire country can ratify an amendment. Without an amendment the word infringed remains supreme. there are no limits, No qualifier written in the second amendment and not a single one can be added even by congress If he will stand as a true constitutionalist we start getting our entire constitution back. One ruling could have the greatest impact on our constitution, the definition of original intent.

Anonymous said...

What we need to do throughout all of government is to stop and prevent cronyism. One judge or one cop or one legislator protecting another when they know they are wrong or are breaking the law. legal arguments should be simple enough for a five year old to resolve. Fact is it does not require a degree in law to be appointed to the supreme court or any judicial position any where in any court. what is required is an ability to read the exact words contained in a law and make a fair judgment.

Anonymous said...

"Better to wait till there is more turn over in the court" ? If we would hold judges to the written judicial standards it would not matter which way they lean, leaning is not permitted their duty is to enforce the law as written even if they do not like the law and wait for the law to be changed by those with the authority to change the law. You do not get to be one party or the other when you are an impartial arbiter.

Anonymous said...

Every authority given to government must be specifically written. If it is not written it does not exist and can not be invented by a ruling. fact is the constitution is a contract between we the people and the government we created. a creation can not be greater than the creator. a contract must be enforced to the letter or the contract is broken. the government is at fault/in default not the people. Shall Not be Infringed means nothing related to the right to keep and bear arms is valid and every thing is an infringement. the right to self defense is an accepted God Given right. the government was created to force the guarantee of that right. the factual written 26 words in the second amendment are all that is written and only those words can be enforced. that is centuries old contract law.

Anonymous said...

Read the law, read the constitution, know when you are on solid ground to defend your rights. Knowing the facts greatly increases your confidence. technically speaking. Cops will tell you that you can not video tape them. any time you are on public property you can legally video tape any thing you damn well please. In your home if the cops tell you, you can not video tape then you can tell them to get the hell out, to stop what they are doing and get out, lying is fraud, fraud is a crime. a cop that commits a crime is no longer a cop. a cop that violates his oath of office and commits a crime under color of law looses all power and authority of the badge. It is instantaneous, the citizen does not have to wait for a trial to convict the cop at this point the citizen has power over the cop. in your home the cops become an unlawful intruder. You have the authority to order them out. the authority to order them out includes all necessary force to remove them.