The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled what…?

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.












This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled what…?

  1. Harmon Gale says:

    Laws leaving it up to the county sheriff to decide whether or not to issue gun permits sounds an awful lot like the vestiges of Jim Crow laws in the South that were designed to prevent blacks from legally obtaining firearms. Although now, they’re used to deny the majority of citizens of their Second Amendment rights, not just an oppressed minority.

  2. kdmflag says:

    I am confused as to what you are trying to get across in this post. I applaud your ability to not show bias in your writing, and I thank you for bringing this case up on the blog, but I feel like this merely highlights the fractious and ineffective arms policy we have developed across the nation. Cases such as *Peruta v County of San Diego* and the others responding to state and county crackdowns brought about by the rise in home-grown terrorism are causing great disparity in what should be an inherently federal concern and responsibility. I am severely bothered by the concept that what is a legal firearm or arms-related practice in one county may be illegal 20 miles north. I applaud the courts decision, but detest the case’s existence outright.

Leave a Reply