Peruta v. Californi

Facts

In California, a member of the general public may not carry a concealed weapon in public unless he or she has been issued a license. An applicant for such a license must show 'good cause' to carry a concealed firearm. California law authorizes county sheriffs to establish and publish policies defining good cause. The sheriffs of San Diego and Yolo Counties published policies defining good cause as requiring a particularized reason why an applicant needs a concealed firearm for self-defense. Ps allege that they wish to carry concealed firearms in public for self-defense, but that they do not satisfy the good cause requirements in their counties. Ps contend that their counties' definitions of good cause violate their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. P applied for a license to carry a concealed firearm but his application was denied because he had not shown good cause under the policy published in his county. Ps brought suit challenging under the Second Amendment the two counties' interpretation and application of the statutory good cause requirement under California law. The district courts granted summary judgment in each case, holding that the counties' policies do not violate the Second Amendment. A divided three-judge panel of this court reversed both decisions. The panel majority held that San Diego's policy violated the Second Amendment. It held that Ps' suit should be viewed as a challenge to 'the constitutionality of [California's] entire [statutory] scheme.' The Second Amendment required that 'the states permit some form of carry for self-defense outside the home.' The panel held that the county's definition of good cause for a concealed carry license violates the Second Amendment. D moved to intervene in Peruta in order to seek rehearing en banc. The same divided three-judge panel denied California's motion to intervene. The court granted rehearing en banc in both cases.

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.