News

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

The front view of the Supreme Court building

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.

[dave]

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 (23)

  1. This is why we most keep fighting!! for our right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment. It saden to all of us that our government wents to take away the rights of its people just because of some bad people. Today it is the Second Amendment, tomorrow it will be all your rights one by one. We most stand up for our right to be able to protect our self, love ones and others when attacked. I am happy that we have the NRA and the USCCA fighting for our rights to keep and bear arms without them our rights would be gone and we would be left defenseless when attacked.I am will always support the NRA and the USCCA and any one else that will stand up for our rights.

  2. 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.

  3. 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!!

  4. 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.

  5. My problem with this is #1 lack of information about the case I thought the right to bear arms was everybodys right not “everybody but Calif”…#2 this now makes for an argument about the the right of other states…now every liberal and his brother is going to jump on the band wagon to eliminate cc in all states…yes this is a blow to the 2nd amendment maybe not to this case but to crack in the flood gates….

  6. Good cases make bad law.

    This was a “good case” where the exact reading of the law and precedence would yield a murky, ill fitting ruling by the court– one neither side really wanted.

    They made the right choice, it just seems wrong until you actually dig into the gist.

  7. Another case of arrogant and deliberate violation of the Constitution! What part do they not understand “….Shall not be infringed upon…” Liberals…why is it that they want body guards with guns but deny people with their rights?

  8. I live in California, so this is not good news, but what is important here is not the refusal by the SCOTUS to grant cert, but the fact that the refusal was by a 7-2 decision. The reality is that under the current makeup of the court, there is a one-judge majority, that being Justice Kennedy. What this 7-2 ruling tells me is that Justice Kennedy would likely vote to uphold the 9th Circuit decision, thus setting a horrible 2A precedent for the future. Justices Roberts and Alito, by voting against cert, are allowing time for the court makeup to change to a more favorable environment. The possibility of Kennedy and/or Ginsberg retiring is quite strong over the next 3 years, and should that happen, the Peruta decision, or one like it could be granted cert, with the probability of a favorable 2A decision. A partial loss is superior to a total defeat.

    1. I think you’re right on here, Boggman. If the Court had taken the case and the majority upheld the 9th Circuit decision, it would be almost impossible to un-ring that bell. It may have been a very smart tactical move.

  9. @DJones REALLY??? then why did Gov. Moonbeam come crying to Trump to fix the broken Orville dam??

  10. I think it’s wise for all Americans to realize that courts in the U.S.A. issue opinions based on their reading of the law. Courts DO NOT give “rulings” as they are not kings or dictators. It’s their opinion,!
    I, like all logical Americans, have a different more reasoned opinion. Therefore it is our right as citizens to stand up to this usurpation of our rights by peacefully saying no to their violations of the BILL OF RIGHTS ignoring these opinions.
    JUST SAY NO !

  11. I’m surprised by SCOTUS refusal to consider Perruta. This case seems to meet all the requirements for Supreme Court review and a definitive action on its merits would have an effect in may states w similar anti-2A laws. The majority has now shifted toward a more conservative court. I’d love to hear the logic behind the decision not to review the case

    1. @ Edward Zampella, MD.

      The US Supreme Court, receives approximately 40,000 Applications per Year. And yet can act on ONLY address approximately 8,000 of them. I suspect there’s a “Vetting” process within SCOTUS on which cases are considered “Worthy” of Hearing and others that can be addressed by the Lower Federal Courts. Or just maybe Chief Justice Roberts just “Doesn’t” want to hear it, BECAUSE of the Subject of the CONTENTS of the Application. It’s HIS Court and he can run it any way he like, regardless of what the “Applicant” wants…

  12. Geez, I thought that California was going to secede anyways; consequently if that happened the Second Amendment wouldn’t apply anyways, right? I wish the state would hurry up and secede because Trump got into the White House. We could surely use the federal funds that go there to build the wall!

    1. If and when California does secede. Which I highly doubt California will do. But, I really wish they would. We would then need to build 2 walls if California did secede. California already harbors millions of illegal immigrants. We would have to wall off the whole state of California as well as all of the southern border.

      Just saying….

    2. Oh really? I’ll include merely ONE out of many articles on the subject, but California is THE LAST state that should be trying to ruffle its feathers to DEFY what has already proven to be Constitutional rights.

      California politicians only HOPE that enough of its chowder-headed citizens and social baggage will continue to believe that the legislature and Governor Moonbeam have a handle on the situation. NOTHING could be further from the truth. They want to convey the image of strength that they have the wherewithal to secede, but if that were to happen, it would be in shambles in no time.

      It isn’t much different to when Clinton claimed he left office with a surplus when he had merely played a shell game by taking advantage of voter ignorance over how our country holds its assets and debt. California is like your typical millennial; fiscally incompetent to manage their own affairs.

      https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-state-of-California-bankrupt

    3. With all due respect, that link is super old, and really old news. It’s not completely true either. But, California is super screwed up! They will never secede, that’s an illogical thought. We can’t play into these kinds of silly notions. These types of rantings are what hurt our cause all together.

    4. I included that particular reference because it is just as relevant today as it was four years ago. How you can see this as “silly notions”, as you stated, I find a bit naive. The globalists have had every intention to divide or fractionate this country and California is one huge testbed for their plans (Agenda21, etc.) California. like Chicago and NYC are merely petri dishes and barometers to the globalists.

      What rant is hurting whose cause?

    5. California being bankrupt simply continues forever as old news and new news. It that situation ever changes, THAT will be amazing news!

    6. Djones you need to check your facts before you make asinine statements like that. California gets the most fed money for welfare and health care for their illegals and minorities. Not to mention the free fed money for migrants and the legal green card immigrants to start businesses with.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Time limit exceeded. Please click the reload button and complete the captcha once again.

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.