×

Concealed Carry At Risk In California! 

June 28, 2016

Help CRPA Continue To Fight For The Right To Bear Arms!
 – Click Here To See Our New Filing In The Peruta Case – 

On June 9, 2016, an eleven-judge “en banc” panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its long-awaited decision in the NRA and CRPA supported case of Peruta v. San Diego County. The en banc court was reviewing the monumental ruling by the original three-judge appellate panel that came down in February 2014 and held that the San Diego County Sheriff’s policy of refusing to issue licenses to carry firearms in public unless the applicant could demonstrate a special need (beyond self-defense) was an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment. The en banc panel took the rare step of ordering a rehearing of that favorable ruling by the three-judge panel, even though neither party asked for one.

Sadly, but not unexpectedly, the en banc panel reversed the three-judge panel’s ruling and held that there is no Second Amendment violation in denying plaintiffs concealed carry licenses, because there is no constitutional right to carry a concealed firearm in public. The Court studiously avoided answering the question of whether there is a constitutional right to carry a firearm openly (unconcealed) in public.

Despite this ruling, the fight for the right to carry in California is not over, and the Peruta case is not over either. Plaintiffs in the Peruta case, including the CRPA, are seeking additional review in the Ninth Circuit before the entire Ninth Circuit court, and in the United States Supreme Court. To see the latest filings, click here. There will also be a new lawsuit filed soon in the lower court over the open carry case.

Your support is now more critical than ever to increase our chances of success in this ongoing effort, and in the other pro RKBA lawsuits the NRA and CRPA are involved in.

This disappointing outcome was not unanticipated. Considering the political inclinations of the judges on the en banc panel (eight of the eleven were appointed by democratic presidents), many predicted this result the moment the Court ordered the case to be reheard back in March 2015. Of the eleven judges, two also sat on the same three-judge panel that issued the February, 2014 ruling. Unfortunately, one was the dissenting judge on that three-judge panel, who since then has become the Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit. He is likely the judge who initiated the en banc review hearing to begin with, so he was predicted to vote to overturn the pro-gun ruling, which he and a majority of the en banc panel did. But the other judge who sat on the original three-judge panel wrote a compelling dissent to the en banc panel’s opinion. She was joined by three other judges, making this a 7-4 decision.

For those interested in learning more about this critical Second Amendment case, NRA News has produced an outstanding video and America’s First Freedom magazine published an enlightening article about the case. Dave Kopel also recently wrote an article that was featured in the Washington Post that explains the case. It can be read here.

For a summary of some of the many actions the NRA and CRPA has taken on behalf of California gun owners, including the Peruta case, click here.

Help CRPA Continue To Fight For The Right To Bear Arms!
 – Click Here To See Our New Filing In The Peruta Case – 

On June 9, 2016, an eleven-judge “en banc” panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its long-awaited decision in the NRA and CRPA supported case of Peruta v. San Diego County. The en banc court was reviewing the monumental ruling by the original three-judge appellate panel that came down in February 2014 and held that the San Diego County Sheriff’s policy of refusing to issue licenses to carry firearms in public unless the applicant could demonstrate a special need (beyond self-defense) was an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment. The en banc panel took the rare step of ordering a rehearing of that favorable ruling by the three-judge panel, even though neither party asked for one.

Leave a Reply