BREAKING: California Court Strikes Down Part of “May Issue” Carry Permits
Guns Save Lives is not supported by ads and is ran as an independent project. If you support this project please consider supporting us on Patreon. Registration takes just a moment and even $1 is a massive help in continuing our work. Thank you so much.
This one could turn out to be a major win for gun rights in the courts.
According to several media outlets, the Ninth Circuit Federal Appeals Court has struck down a restrictive part of California’s carry permit law.
According to the Washington Post,
California law has a process for applying for a permit to carry a handgun for protection in public, with requirements for safety training, a background check, and so on. These requirements were not challenged. The statute also requires that the applicant have “good cause,” which was interpreted by San Diego County to mean that the applicant is faced with current specific threats. (Not all California counties have this narrow interpretation.) The Ninth Circuit, in a 2-1 opinion written by Judge O’Scannlain, ruled that Peruta was entitled to Summary Judgement, because the “good cause” provision violates the Second Amendment.
The Court ruled that a government may specify what mode of carrying to allow (open or concealed), but a government may not make it impossible for the vast majority of Californians to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms.
Exactly how this decision will affect the availability of carry permits and/or the return of open carry is yet to be seen. I’m sure some of the more legally minded commentators will be along with some more in depth analysis soon.
There was one dissenting judge in the case. According to the Washington Times,
In a dissenting opinion, Judge Sidney R. Thomas wrote that in addition to striking down San Diego County’s concealed carry policy, the majority ruling “upends the entire California firearm regulatory scheme.”
“In dealing a needless, sweeping judicial blow to the public safety discretion invested in local law enforcement officers and to California’s carefully constructed firearm regulatory scheme, the majority opinion conflicts with Supreme Court authority, the decisions of our sister circuits, and our own circuit precedent,” he wrote.