Peruta CA9 petitioned to SCOTUS -

Under California law, openly carrying a handgun

outside the home is generally prohibited, but

concealed carry is permissible with a license. While

an applicant must demonstrate “good cause” to

obtain a concealed-carry license, county sheriffs

can—and many do—interpret “good cause” to include

a desire to carry a handgun for self-defense. The San

Diego County Sheriff takes a different, and much

more restrictive, approach, defining “good cause” to

require a particularized need for self-defense that


differentiates the applicant from the ordinary citizen.

The majority of a three-judge panel held the Sheriff’s

policy unconstitutional, concluding that ordinary,

law-abiding citizens may not be deprived of the

ability to obtain concealed-carry licenses for selfdefense

when state law already prohibits open carry.

But the majority of an en banc panel reached the

opposite conclusion, holding that the Sheriff may

deny concealed-carry licenses on any terms he

chooses because there is no independent

constitutional right to concealed carry. In reaching


that conclusion, the Ninth Circuit added to the sharp

division among the lower courts over whether the

Second Amendment allows ordinary, law-abiding

citizens to be deprived of all means of carrying a

handgun for self-defense.

The question presented is:

Whether the Second Amendment entitles

ordinary, law-abiding citizens to carry handguns

outside the home for self-defense in some manner,

including concealed carry when open carry is

forbidden by state law.

Click to expand...

dwjwin50 said:

Amazing that this came from the 9th Circuit Court. It's the most leftist court in the nation.

Click to expand...

Amici have two interests in the outcome of this case.


First, citizens in the Amici Governors' States should

not be forced to choose between exercising their

constitutional rights to bear arms and exercising

their constitutional rights to travel to California.

This Court has said that "the 'constitutional right to

travel from one State to another' is firmly embedded

in our jurisprudence." Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489,


498 (1999) (quoting United States v. Guest, 383 U.S.


745, 757 (1966)). In fact, "the right is so important

that it is 'assertable against private interference as

well as governmental action . . . a virtually

unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the

Constitution to us all.'" Ibid. (quoting Shapiro v.


Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 643 (1969) (Stewart, J.,


concurring)). If citizens in a State like Texas need or


want to travel to a State like California, they should

not be forced to check their gun rights at the border.

Second, California bases its incapacious view of

the right to bear arms on purported "public safety"

concerns. But data from the Amici Governors' States

proves that California's worries are unfounded. It is


by now indisputable that concealed handgun license

("CHL") holders are disproportionately less likely to

commit crimes. Therefore, California's "public

safety" concerns should be rejected as pretextual.

Seeking to protect the constitutional rights of the

citizens of their States, and to better inform the

Court on the public safety justification offered in this

lawsuit, the Amici Governors respectfully submit

this brief in support of Petitioners.

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT


The question presented is whether the State of

California can single out one group of disfavored

citizens-namely, gun owners-and impose unique

burdens on their fundamental rights. If this were a

case about speech, the right to counsel, or any of the

myriad rights protected by the Fourteenth

Amendment, every federal court in this country

would reject California's arguments out of hand.

Indeed, no other group of private citizens has to

prove-to the satisfaction of a government official

vested with unreviewable and boundless discretionthat

they really need to exercise their fundamental

constitutional freedoms.

California's only purported justification is that

guns are somehow different because they pose

unique "public safety" concerns. That blinks reality.

It cannot be disputed that concealed-carry permitholders

are disproportionately less likely to pose

threats to "public safety." And empirical evidence

proves that concealed-carry laws either reduce crime

or have no effect on it. Given that it cannot be

justified by facts, California's efforts to ban the

carriage of guns "raise the inevitable inference that

the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity

toward the class of persons affected." Romer v.


Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 634 (1996).

That animus or irrational fear is no less

unconstitutional here than it would be in any other

area of constitutional law. As this Court has held,

the Second Amendment does not create "a second class

right." McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S.

742, 780 (2010).

Click to expand...

The emerging trend here is toward a robust

protection of Second Amendment rights. As of last

count, forty-one States have tailored their licensing

procedures to both secure the constitutional rights of

their citizens and protect public safety.2 These so-

called “shall issue” States grant concealed carry


licenses to all law-abiding citizens who can show

reasonable proficiency with a firearm. John R. Lott,

Jr., What A Balancing Test Will Show for Right-to-

Carry Laws, 71 MD. L. REV. 1205, 1207 (2012). The


laws of these States “provide testimony to the

unreasonableness” of San Diego County’s licensing

procedure and to “the ease with which” the sheriff

“can adopt less burdensome means” to accomplish its

ends. Hodgson, 497 U.S. at 455. Forty-one States


have managed to enact regulations that both respect

the right to bear arms and further their compelling

interest in protecting the health and safety of their

citizens. The San Diego County sheriff should be

able to do the same.

Even if the sheriff were to argue that San Diego is

meaningfully different from counties in States like

Washington, Oregon, and Nevada, there is surely

some middle ground between the thoroughgoing

protection of Second Amendment rights that other

governments provide and the absolute denial of those

rights in San Diego County. It is striking that a

resident of Alabama, upon moving to San Diego

County, would find such a stark difference in the

treatment of a fundamental right protected by the

United States Constitution. Although some

differences in the law are expected—and even

welcomed—in our federalist system, it offends basic

notions of ordered liberty to have a constitutionally

enshrined right robustly protected in one

jurisdiction—or in this case forty-one States—and

extinguished elsewhere. And the split over the scope

of this constitutional right among federal and state

courts, see Pet. for Writ of Cert. at 15–20, which the


en banc decision of the Ninth Circuit deepened,

exaggerates the difference of treatment of this right

throughout the States.


* * *


Although increasing safety and reducing crime

are compelling government interests, the Court has

made clear that “the very enumeration of the [Second

Amendment] right takes out of the hands of

government . . . the power to decide on a case-by-case

basis whether the right is really worth insisting

upon.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 634. Because the


combination of California’s statutory scheme and the

San Diego County sheriff’s licensing scheme

extinguishes the core Second Amendment right of

law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms for lawful

purposes, it violates the Second Amendment. The

vast majority of States—who share the San Diego

County sheriff’s compelling interests in public safety

and preventing crime—have not found the

elimination of the Second Amendment right to bear

arms necessary to achieve it. The licensing regime

cannot pass constitutional muster.

Click to expand...

CoalTrain49 said:

I'm not sure about nat'l reciprocity but it certainly is a very good argument for shall issue. .

Click to expand...

jdc1244 said:

But Gorsuch is an advocate of “states’ rights”:



And as an advocate of “states’ rights,” Gorsuch should vote to respect the right of the state of California to regulate firearms as it sees fit; unless, of course, Gorsuch is an inconsistent hypocrite.

Moreover, “limited Federal government” would apply also to the Federal courts, who should acknowledge the will of the people of the states to govern themselves absent interference from the Federal courts.

Indeed, far too many supporters of gun rights are also supporters of this sort of judicial activism and legislating from the bench, to the detriment of the people of the states and local communities.

Click to expand...

steve4102 said:

...and if he is not?

What happens if the (8) sitting Justices decide not to grant CT?

What happens if the (8) Justices Grand CT and it comes down to a 4-4 split?

What happens of (8) Justices grant CT and it is ruled 3-5 or worse?

IMO, without Gorsuch involved right from the get go, this is a bad move bringing this before these (8) justices.

Click to expand...