There has been an interesting societal trend in the United States and it is the State legislative interest and action in liberalizing the concealed carry of firearms by private citizens. As legislation, California has had a long history of allowing its cities and counties [usually under the purview of its Police Chiefs and Sheriffs] to elect to issue ‘concealed pistol permits’ to their resident citizens. Rural counties tended to issue them and counties in urban areas, such as Los Angeles county would rarely, if ever, issue them. Cities were usually very restrictive with issuance. Permits to those who were issued such a permit were contingent upon completion of a suitable course of training, being of ‘good moral character’, and demonstrate ‘good cause’. California Penal Code – §§ 26150, 26155.
Some California residents were displeased that celebrities, politicians, and a select few could obtain these permits and they were effectively ruled out because their local Chief of Police / Sheriff would refuse to issue such a permit, usually under the guise of – ‘need not demonstrated’ by assertion of the claim of right of self defense. They also argued that the law was not uniformly applied by jurisdictions within the State.
To this end, several San Diego residents filed for a Federal injunction to overturn the county Sheriff’s decision to deny permits to the average person without a demonstrable need/’good cause’. They used the Second Amendment within the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution to underpin their arguments in Federal District Court. The San Diego, California government departments defended their denials based to potential threats to public safety.
Being denied, the petitioners appealed to the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals and based on the US Supreme Court’s interpretation of the cases of District of Columbia v. Heller (554 US 570 (2008)) and of McDonald v. City of Chicago, IL (130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010)); they elected to hear the appeal.
Throughout the reading of the Court’s decision, a great amount of reference is made to ‘textualism’, historical precedent, and Justice Antonin Scalia’s deliberative interpretations in the aforementioned cases.
Here is the link to the case which was filed today – 13 February 2014:
This decision by the Court reinstates a legal action brought in 2009 by Edward Peruta, who challenged San Diego County’s and the San Diego County Sheriff’s [William Gore] denial of a concealed weapons permit for Peruta. This ruling is surprising in the fact that the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is usually considered one of the most liberal/progressive Courts in the nation.