By Kristina Davis
“If the lawyers arguing both sides of a controversial concealed weapons case agreed on one thing Tuesday, it was that the constitutional right to bear arms extends outside the home.
The panel of 11 judges with the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals appeared to agree on the same point, but to what degree was less than clear as arguments on the issue wrapped up in San Francisco.
The en banc panel is being asked to re-examine California’s concealed weapons law and whether individual counties can set their own rules restricting who can and cannot tote hidden guns.
“The Second Amendment, does it change from county to county?” asked Judge Consuelo Maria Callahan.
In a courtroom filled to capacity, the panel heard arguments from the parties in two similar cases out of San Diego and Yolo counties in which citizens sued after being denied concealed weapons permits.
The cases have generated national attention, and many observers predict this could be the best chance for the U.S. Supreme Court to bring clarity to how far the Second Amendment extends beyond the home.
“The Supreme Court doesn’t like to talk about the Second Amendment very often,” one of the judges commented during the hearing.
“Which makes this court’s opinion all the more important,” replied Paul Clement, an attorney arguing on behalf of the San Diego plaintiffs.
The local case originated in a 2009 lawsuit by Edward Peruta, a part-time San Diego resident and the owner of an independent news service, and other gun owners. They are being backed by the National Rifle Association.
photoEd Peruta
Peruta won a victory in the case in February 2014 when a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit ruled that self-defense is a good enough good cause for law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons. The ruling struck down the San Diego County sheriff’s policy that a permit holder needed a more specific reason to carry a concealed gun, such as being stalked, or having a job transporting large amounts of cash.
Tuesday’s hearing was granted after an anonymous judge polled fellow judges on whether they would like to rehear the case. Such a rehearing can happen if a majority of the judges feel there is a conflict with other federal court decisions, or if they consider the issue of exceptional importance.
In their questions Tuesday, many of the judges circled around the same central question: Does the Constitution offer the same right for someone to carry a concealed gun at a mall as in the countryside? How does public safety balance with the Second Amendment?
Clement, a former U.S. Solicitor under the Bush administration, told the panel he wasn’t disputing California’s desire to regulate the carrying of concealed weapons. Background checks, safety training and licensing were all reasonable, he said. But he disputed the San Diego County sheriff’s interpretation of what constitutes good cause.
He pointed to other populous counties that allow a more lenient standard of good cause: Sacramento, Fresno, San Bernardino.
“What happens is two things, crime stays exactly the same or it goes down,” he said of those counties.
When the initial 9th Circuit ruling came down last year, Sheriff Bill Gore said he would not fight the ruling. He stuck with that position Tuesday, with the county ceding its 15 minutes of argument time to the state Attorney General’s Office, which is trying to intervene as a party in the case.
Edward DuMont, who argued on behalf of the state, told the judges there is a rich tradition of regulating the carrying of firearms in populated areas for public safety, dating back centuries, and that gun-carrying is still allowed in the home and in rural areas.
“The fact you can’t get a concealed weapon permit to walk down streets, parks and malls of downtown San Diego doesn’t mean your right to carry a firearm outside the home is destroyed,” DuMont said.
Many of the judges also questioned how the case should be viewed, now that California has made it illegal to openly carry unloaded weapons in public places.
“You have the right to be ready and armed in case of confrontation,” answered Alan Gura, representing Adam Richards in the Yolo County case. “If the legislature says you can’t carry in any way, shape or form, than the right has been effectively destroyed.”
“The right to self-defense outside the home is forbidden to us almost anywhere on the grid,” Clement added in his rebuttal argument.
The judges will take the case under submission and are to make a ruling within the next several weeks.
Outside the courthouse, Chuck Michel, one of the Peruta lawyers, said it is difficult to predict the outcome based on political affiliations. Most of the panel is made up of Democratic appointees.
The hearing was presided over by Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas, who happened to be the dissenting voice on the court’s original 2-1 decision released last year that loosened the gun permitting restrictions.
“If you just went by the questions and answers, it might suggest the panel might come down on our side,” he predicted. “They’re really taking it seriously, giving it a lot of thought, and we’re hopeful.”
The Attorney General’s Office declined to comment.”
Be sure to follow me on Facebook, Instagram or Twitter, buttons on the right side of the page.
Subscribe to our email Newsletter at the bottom of the page!
#firearms #firearmstraining #guns #handguns #rifles #shotguns #shooting #shootingsports #ammo #gunsmith #2a #selfdefense #competitiveshooting #froglube #competitionshooting #molonlabe #nra #National Rifle Association #guncrafttraining
