Second Amendment

Peruta v. California (2016)


  • May 17 2018

Download Oral Argument right click and save

Issue
As interpreted by a particular county, whether a state law that effectively bans the carrying of firearms by ordinary, law-abiding citizens violates their right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment.

Facts
Edward Peruta was a 60-year-old American citizen and San Diego County resident with experience in firearms training. He had been a rifle and pistol instructor at the U.S. Naval Academy, a Connecticut police officer, a pistol instructor for Connecticut concealed-carry applicants, and a certified National Rifle Association NRA Basic Pistol instructor, among his other certifications and training experiences with small arms.

His occupation as the founder of an information-gathering news service required him to travel to high-crime and remote rural areas, sometimes carrying large sums of cash, valuables, and equipment. In his efforts to obtain a concealed carry permit in California, Peruta completed the required eight-hour firearms safety training, was interviewed by a licensing supervisor, and submitted an application for a license to carry a concealed firearm. San Diego County denied Peruta the license, however, for failing to show “good cause” beyond the interest of self-defense, a requirement for the concealed carry license as interpreted by San Diego County. Other counties had interpreted the same statute more loosely, without the necessity to show “good cause” beyond self-defense.

Peruta brought suit against San Diego County, primarily arguing that the county’s interpretation of the law was incorrect, and the requirements for obtaining a concealed carry permit violated his right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment and 14th Amendment. He also argued that San Diego gave preferential treatment to some concealed-carry applicants in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, among other secondary claims.

The Court Below
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California was the first to hear the case. The court granted a summary judgement in favor of San Diego County, stating that the California “good cause” statute was valid and should not be held to the standard of “strict scrutiny.” The government had satisfactorily showed, the court ruled, that the law was “reasonably related to a ‘significant,’ ‘substantial,’ or ‘important’ governmental interest.” See opinion below:

Peruta v. San Diego County, 758 F.Supp.2d 1106 S.D. California, 2010

Peruta appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which reversed the district court’s ruling, holding that a responsible, law-abiding citizen has a right under the Second Amendment to carry a firearm in public for self-defense. See opinion below:

Peruta v. San Diego County, 742 F.3d 1144 9th Cir., 2014

A Ninth Circuit judge absent from the original panel requested a circuit-wide vote for a new hearing on his own accord, and the court agreed to hear the case en banc consisting of 11 of the 29 Ninth Circuit judges. The en banc Ninth Circuit then affirmed the original district court ruling, holding that “the Second Amendment does not protect, in any degree, the carrying of concealed firearms by members of the general public.” See opinion below:

Peruta v. San Diego County, 824 F.3d 919 9th Cir., 2016

Peruta requested a full en banc hearing of the entire Ninth Circuit, but was denied. Peruta then appealed to the Supreme Court, which denied the writ of certiorari. Justices Thomas and Gorsuch dissented from the denial, writing that the “approach taken by the en banc court is indefensible … [T]he Second Amendment’s core purpose further supports this conclusion that the right to bear arms extends to public carry. …” See dissent below:

Peruta v. California, 137 S.Ct. 1995   2017

Question before the Ninth Circuit
“We do not reach the question whether the Second Amendment protects some ability to carry firearms in public, such as open carry. …[W]e reach only the question whether the Second Amendment protects, in any degree, the ability to carry concealed firearms in public.”

CCJ filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Peruta.

Summary:
The right to bear arms protected by the Second Amendment is a codification of the natural right to self-defense. This right to self-defense extends beyond the threshold of the home, which early American case law supports. Carrying arms is inextricably linked to the most fundamental right to preserve one’s own life, and thus laws prohibiting ordinary, law-abiding citizens from carrying arms violate the deepest convictions of Western statesmen and philosophers whose principles underlie our system of government.

The right to carry arms has long been recognized as a means to exercise the fundamental right to self-defense. Aristotle, Marcus Tullius Cicero, Hugo Grotius, William Blackstone, the English Bill of Rights, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, many state constitutions, and the United States Supreme Court have all variously sanctioned the right to carry arms for self-defense as an inherent natural right of free citizens.

This right extends beyond the home. Nothing in the history of the passage of early state constitutions and the Second Amendment indicate that this right was restricted to one’s own private dwelling or business. There is no basis on which to argue that the Framers meant only to preserve a mere shadow of the recognized natural right of self-defense. Codifying the right to “keep arms” is meaningless if there is no corollary right to “bear arms.” Citizens do not waive their right to self-defense merely by crossing through a doorway. Indeed, the need to exercise the right to self-defense arguably becomes more acute once people expose themselves to the dangers of the world.

Not only did the Supreme Court hold in D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S.___2008 that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm, but the Court held in McDonald v. Chicago, 561___2010 that this right is protected from state-level infringement under the 14th Amendment. The Court in Heller cited several antebellum state court decisions affirming this right under the Second Amendment and analogous state provisions. The Kentucky supreme court struck down a state law prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons in 1822. The Georgia supreme court struck down a ban on openly carrying handguns in 1846. The Tennessee court did the same in 1871, as did Vermont in 1903, Idaho in 1902, and so on. American state and federal case law supports the claim that the right to self-defense and thus the carrying arms is a natural right, and the recognition of citizenship by the government inevitably leads to the recognition of the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense as well.

Final Outcome
Peruta appealed to the Supreme Court, which denied the writ of certiorari. Thus the Supreme Court did not consider CCJ’s argument that the right to self-defense outside of the home via concealed carry is a natural, historical, and legal right long recognized by Western philosophers, constitutions, and statesmen.

The Ninth Circuit’s opinion stands as of 2017, although the ruling applies only to California law since other states within the Ninth Circuit may have laws that allow for the carrying of firearms, which are not necessarily unconstitutional. According to the Ninth Circuit, states and local governments can essentially ban concealed carry without infringing on Second Amendment rights.