Just when you thought it was safe to go out in public, the California courts restrict your right to self-defense once again. This time, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled against the right to carry concealed weapons in public. The Second Amendment and the right to self-defense lost a major decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today. The court ruled that Americans do not have a constitutional right to carry concealed weapons in public. The court was divided (7-4), but ultimately upheld a California law mandating applicants to show “good cause” to obtain a concealed-carry permit.
This seems to be in conflict with previous rulings, but for now, according to the federal appeals court, Americans do not have a constitutional right to carry concealed weapons in public.
The next logical step would be the Supreme Court to determine whether local law enforcement officials should have the right to place significant restrictions on who is allowed to carry firearms concealed. Today’s decision overturns an earlier decision by a 9-judge panel. In that ruling, the same court that said applicants need only express a desire for personal safety.
The Ninth Circuit’s rulings are binding in nine Western states. Two other federal appeals courts have taken up the issue—New York and Maryland. Both ruling were inline with the Ninth Circuit’s latest ruling.
The National Rifle Association called the ruling “out of touch.” “This decision will leave good people defenseless, as it completely ignores the fact that law-abiding Californians who reside in counties with hostile sheriffs will now have no means to carry a firearm outside the home for personal protection,” said NRA legislative chief Chris W. Cox.
The New York-based gun control organization Everytown welcomed the decision as “a major victory for public safety.” The Ninth Circuit decision arose from a lawsuit filed by Edward Peruta. The Shooter’s Log covered the story at the time (links to coverage below). Peruta’s suit challenged the San Diego County sheriff’s refusal to issue a permit because he failed to cite a “good cause.” The sheriff required applicants to produce supporting documents, such as a restraining order against a possible attacker.
Peruta argued that the requirement violated the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
- Ninth Circuit to Reconsider Game-Changing Peruta Decision
- 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
What will this mean for gun rights in the future? Should the Supreme Court decide the matter? Share your opinions in the comment section.