Explore The NRA Universe Of Websites

Peruta Opinion Finds No Right to Carry Concealed Firearms

Thursday, June 9, 2016

Peruta Opinion Finds No Right to Carry Concealed Firearms

A full panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit today used shameful sophistry and sleight of hand to effectively deny millions of Californians their constitutional right to bear firearms in public for self-defense. The ruling came in the long-running case of Peruta v. San Diego, which challenged California’s discretionary issuance of concealed carry permits, the only option Californians have to legally exercise this right. Ignoring that fact, the court held that concealed carry of firearms in public is not protected by the Second Amendment and that discretionary permitting for it therefore does not offend that provision.

We have been reporting on the saga of the Peruta case for a number of years (including here, here, here, and here). The issue in the case is simple: Does the Second Amendment allow California officials to deny the state’s residents the only effective means they have of carrying a firearm in public for self-defense, absent a showing of an extraordinary need to do so? The answer to that question is simple – no – and it was answered correctly in an opinion by a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit back in 2014.  The panel recognized that the question at the heart of the case was “whether a responsible, law-abiding citizen has a right under the Second Amendment to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.”

Nevertheless, after that decision was issued, a majority of the full Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals took it upon itself to order the case to be reheard. In reversing the panel’s decision, the full court deceptively recast the issue in the case as whether plaintiffs, who “wish to carry concealed firearms in public” but “do not satisfy the good cause requirements in their counties” nevertheless have a Second Amendment right to be issued concealed carry licenses.

The plaintiffs asserted because concealed carry licenses are the only means responsible, law-abiding Californians have to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms in California, they cannot be subject to issuance only on a showing of extraordinary need. It was the State of California, not the plaintiffs, that decided concealed carry would be the vehicle state residents had of protecting themselves from violent crime in public.

While a majority of the Ninth Circuit judges signed onto the decision to deny Californians their rights, three strongly-reasoned dissents, accounting for the opinions of four judges, called out the majority’s chicanery. The dissents correctly point out that it was the State, not the plaintiffs, who established the “concealed carry” permitting context of the case. The dissenting judges also would have explicitly held that responsible, law-abiding Americans certainly do have a right to “bear” arms in public for self-defense.  According to the dissent of Judge Conseulo M. Callahan (an appointee of President George W. Bush), the majority’s framing of the case was nothing more than “an elaborate straw man.”

While the majority opinion blithely asserts that people who believe California’s ban on open carry violates the Second Amendment have the option of challenging that ban, they ignore the fact that no provision of California law provides a means for law-abiding citizens to do so for self-defense. Thus, achieving proper standing to mount such a challenge would be difficult for anyone who does not commit a criminal violation of California’s open carry ban.

In the final analysis, the majority opinion does perform one very important public service: It provides the clearest possible example of why liberty-loving Americans need to go to the polls this November and vote for those candidates who will preserve their Second Amendment rights. The consequences of failing to do so could not be clearer.

“Once again the 9th Circuit showed how out of touch it is with mainstream Americans.  This decision will leave good people defenseless, as it completely ignores the fact that law-abiding Californians who reside in counties with hostile sheriffs will now have no means to carry a firearm outside the home for personal protection. This flawed ruling underscores the importance of the 2016 election. It is imperative that we elect a President who will appoint Supreme Court justices who respect the Second Amendment and law-abiding citizens right to self-defense,” Chris W. Cox, executive director, National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA).

TRENDING NOW
New Jersey Attorney General Platkin: Making Up Gun Control Laws as He Goes Along

News  

Monday, August 4, 2025

New Jersey Attorney General Platkin: Making Up Gun Control Laws as He Goes Along

The most fundamental requirement for a legitimate legal regime is that a person must be able to know what the law requires before being held accountable to it. 

Smith & Wesson’s Clinton-Era Agreement Resurrected in Canadian Lawsuit

News  

Monday, August 4, 2025

Smith & Wesson’s Clinton-Era Agreement Resurrected in Canadian Lawsuit

In 2000, as part of a settlement of dozens of product liability/negligence lawsuits brought by local governments and the threat of litigation by the federal government, the then-British-owned gunmaker Smith & Wesson signed a deal brokered by ...

Armed Citizen Helps Stop Terrifying Mass Stabbing in Michigan

News  

Monday, August 4, 2025

Armed Citizen Helps Stop Terrifying Mass Stabbing in Michigan

Recent headlines continue to serve as important reminders that when seconds count, a lawfully armed citizen is often there in the interval before law enforcement can be.

NRA, Other Leading Second Amendment Groups File Lawsuit Challenging the Constitutionality of the National Firearms Act

News  

Friday, August 1, 2025

NRA, Other Leading Second Amendment Groups File Lawsuit Challenging the Constitutionality of the National Firearms Act

Today, the National Rifle Association (NRA), American Suppressor Association (ASA), Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), Prime Protection STL Tactical Boutique, and two members of the organizations filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality ...

North Carolina: Pro-Gun Bills Advance in Veto Override Session

Tuesday, July 29, 2025

North Carolina: Pro-Gun Bills Advance in Veto Override Session

During a veto override session on Tuesday, July 29th, both chambers passed House Bill 193 (H193) and defeated Governor Josh Stein's veto.

Australia Firearm Data Breach Shows Dangers of Gun Licensing and Registration

News  

Monday, August 4, 2025

Australia Firearm Data Breach Shows Dangers of Gun Licensing and Registration

Firearm data breaches are becoming the norm in Australasia.

UK to Ban Lead Ammo

News  

Monday, August 4, 2025

UK to Ban Lead Ammo

It goes without saying that banning guns is not the only way to effectively disarm civilians.  

Legislation Introduced to Prevent States from Enforcing Firearm Rosters

News  

Thursday, July 31, 2025

Legislation Introduced to Prevent States from Enforcing Firearm Rosters

On July 23, Representatives Darrell Issa (R-CA-48) and Elise Stefanik (R-NY-21) introduced the Modern Firearm Safety Act (H.R. 4676). This legislation would reject the effort by anti-gun radicals to utilize unconstitutional “handgun rosters.” These rosters prevent law-abiding ...

Florida: Second Amendment Sales Tax Holiday Signed by Governor

Monday, July 7, 2025

Florida: Second Amendment Sales Tax Holiday Signed by Governor

Governor Ron DeSantis recently signed the Florida Budget for Fiscal Year 2025–2026, which includes a Second Amendment sales tax holiday from September 8 through December 31, 2025. The NRA is thankful for Governor DeSantis’ strong ...

U.S. House Passes Reconciliation Bill, Removing Suppressors from the National Firearms Act

News  

Second Amendment  

Thursday, May 22, 2025

U.S. House Passes Reconciliation Bill, Removing Suppressors from the National Firearms Act

Earlier today, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R.1 the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which included Section 2 of the Hearing Protection Act, completely removing suppressors from the National Firearms Act (NFA).

MORE TRENDING +
LESS TRENDING -

More Like This From Around The NRA

NRA ILA

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the "lobbying" arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.