“If they were to take that bold step, any laws that prohibit or restrict that right would be in violation of case law.”
It could be a huge blow to the anti-firearms rights people and a huge leap for individual rights and the 2nd Amendment when the United States Supreme Court meets later this year. A group of gun owners in California (yes the same restrictive anti-firearms state) has petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case of Peruta vs. County of San Diego.
California law delegates the power to issue a written policy setting forth the procedures for obtaining a concealed-carry license to each city and county in Id. § 26160. San Diego County has issued such a policy. At issue in this appeal is that policy’s interpretation of the “good cause” requirement found in Sections 26150 and 26155 of California law. Now think about that for a minute. In California, you cannot get a concealed carry permit unless you can prove to the issuing body (county sheriff or city police) that you have a reason to carry above and beyond the fact that it is for self-protection.
From the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Decision in this case, the reasoning for the initial lawsuit was that, “On October 23, 2009, after the county denied his (Plaintiff Peruta) application for a concealed-carry license, Peruta sued the County of San Diego and its sheriff, William Gore (collectively “the County”), under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, requesting injunctive and declaratory relief from the enforcement of the county policy’s interpretation of “good cause.” Peruta’s lead argument was that, by denying him the ability to carry a loaded handgun for self-defense, the county infringed his right to bear arms under the Second Amendment.
In finalizing their decision on this case, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals claims to have used District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637 (2008), and McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 130 S.Ct. 3020, 177 L.Ed.2d 894 (2010) to reach their decision. I will not bore you with the details of those cases, if you are interested in them you can read the court’s decisions yourself, but to summarize they involved an individuals right to possess and carry firearms for self-defense as a right under the 2nd Amendment. But true to the 9th Circuits way of thinking they were able to twist and turn those very straight forward Supreme Court Cases into what they wanted to find and in the end, they concluded that the policy of the county was not in violation of the Supreme Court ruling found in Heller. That ruling, of course, is ridiculous, and you don’t have to be an attorney to understand that.
That brings us back to the Supreme Court. If they accept the case (and it looks very likely that they will), they will no doubt look at the case in question and rule on it. Being that the SCOTUS seems to have a much better grasp on the Constitutionality of things than the very liberally biased 9th Circuit Court does, they could easily overturn and reverse the lower court’s findings.
If they do find for the plaintiff in this case, they will have stuck a knife in the heart of California, and for that matter nationwide, anti-firearms laws. They could even possibly rule for the wording in the 2nd Amendment and make it case law that it is the right of the individual to possess and carry a firearm for self-defense, according to the Constitution. If they were to take that bold step, any laws that prohibit or restrict that right would be in violation of case law, and individual rights would be restored to where they should have been all along.
One can only hope that the SCOTUS agrees to hear this case and that they, in turn, restore the right of the individual to possess and carry a firearm for self-defense. Which according to the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”
