A Loss for the Second Amendment: Supreme Court Won’t Hear Peruta Case

By Dave Dolbee published on in Legal, News

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is often in the news, but seldom on the side of the Second Amendment as gun owners see it. The Shooter’s Log has followed this closely as the court has ruled for and against Californians’ in their quest to defend themselves under the Second Amendment. Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court announced today it would not grant review in the Peruta v. California case.

Supreme Court Building

Peruta v. California – Applicants for California concealed carry licenses must demonstrate “good cause” to obtain concealed weapons license in California. However, in San Diego, the sheriff sought a “particularized” need for self-defense.  A three-judge panel found the San Diego County Sheriff’s policy unconstitutional, but was reversed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Since the Supreme Court did not take the case, the 9th Circuit’s ruling prevails.

Justices Thomas and Gorsuch were the lone dissenters. Justice Thomas wrote the refusal to hear the case “reflects a distressing trend: their treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right.” He concluded, “For those of us who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem antiquated and superfluous. But the Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense.”

It is a shame the full Court will not hear the case or be swayed by the wisdom of Justice Thomas. The lesson for all of us that the fight continues, and although we have a friend in the White House, citizens are still having their Second Amendment rights stripped at the local and state level.

Here is a list of articles chronicling The Shooter’s Log‘s coverage of Peruta v. California over the past few years.

Ninth Circuit to Reconsider Game-Changing Peruta Decision

Breaking News: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Rules Against Right to Carry Concealed

Court Ruling Ends California Concealed Carry Restrictions

Chalk One Up for the Good Guys! Defending the Second Amendment

Ninth Circuit Strikes California’s ‘Good Cause’ Carry Restriction

How do you think this the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the Peruta case will affect future gun legislation in other states? Will national reciprocity be the answer? Join the conversation with your opinions in the comment section.

SLRule

Growing up in Pennsylvania’s game-rich Allegany region, Dave Dolbee was introduced to whitetail hunting at a young age. At age 19 he bought his first bow while serving in the U.S. Navy, and began bowhunting after returning from Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm. Dave was a sponsored Pro Staff Shooter for several top archery companies during the 1990s and an Olympic hopeful holding up to 16 archery records at one point. During Dave’s writing career, he has written for several smaller publications as well as many major content providers such as Guns & Ammo, Shooting Times, Outdoor Life, Petersen’s Hunting, Rifle Shooter, Petersen’s Bowhunting, Bowhunter, Game & Fish magazines, Handguns, F.O.P Fraternal Order of Police, Archery Business, SHOT Business, OutdoorRoadmap.com, TheGearExpert.com and others. Dave is currently a staff writer for Cheaper Than Dirt!

View all articles by Dave Dolbee

Tags: ,

Trackback from your site.

The mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, "The Shooter's Log," is to provide information-not opinions-to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (22)

  • Hide Behind

    |

    I find no BS and as to political motives beyond the norms of Government procedures, n the higher courts’opimion,, they always appoint a minority of membrrs in order to make all sides feel represented no matter the issue at hand
    Quit pretending Hellar agreement did not completely dedtroy the intent of Rihht of 2nd and change it into a limited ability in weapons choice for self protection .
    we exchanged a Right for lawful meand to keep our toys and allowed local and state powers ability to restrict every other facet of how the construction of the wepons itself.
    Words that compose this nation of laws does nowhere in the Constiyution say they need be Just or have to do with the justice or injustice of those laws.

    Reply

  • Rodney Steward

    |

    This is pure political, the Supreme Court knows how immoral and UnConstitutional California is so they’re going to let them have there way about this to keep future trouble down!! This is completely UnConstitutional by California, PERIOD!!

    Reply

  • Jeff

    |

    I grew up in California and left after my tour of duty in the Marines was up. I am glad knowing that I could not live under the gun laws that now exist there. I have several weapons and a lot of magazines that are now illegal in CA.

    Reply

Leave a comment

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.

%d bloggers like this: