Second Amendment case Peruta vs. California may be heading to Supreme Court

erwin chemerinsky

Dean Erwin Chemerinsky: No right to have concealed weapons

If this does make it to the Supreme Court, I’m certainly hoping for an outcome which favors legal firearm owners.

From Fox News: The Second Amendment is only 27 words, but Americans have used millions of words arguing over what it means. It guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” But which people, what arms, and under what circumstances?

Two milestone cases involving the Second Amendment that reached the Supreme Court are District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), declaring an individual has a right to own a firearm, and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), affirming the Second Amendment applies to state law.

Now, if the Supreme Court decides to hear it, there may be a third major case in a decade: Peruta v. California.

At issue is the right to keep and bear arms outside the home. The Heller case specifically applies to situations within the home. Those who have petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case are hoping the justices will see it as a logical extension of their earlier opinions.

The case arose when Edward Peruta and other gun owners who lived in or near San Diego, Calif., couldn’t get concealed-carry permits in their county. The Sheriff’s Department handles permit requests and requires “good cause” to carry a gun outside of the home. This does not mean a generalized concern for safety, but something specific, such as fear of domestic violence or a regular need to move large amounts of money.

There were two separate lawsuits challenging the interpretation of “good cause,” but the district courts found no violation of the Second Amendment.

Then, in 2014, a three-judge panel on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the policy did indeed violate the right to bear arms for self-defense. The state, however, got a new hearing in front of 11 9th Circuit judges, who decided 7-4, the restrictions for concealed-carry permits were allowable.

The case has now been appealed to the Supreme Court and though the Justices have rescheduled its consideration several times, some experts feel the court is finally ready to hear Peruta.

“I suspect they’re going to grant it,” said John Eastman, former law dean at Chapman University and the director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence. Eastman told Fox News, “it’s percolating all across the country.”

He also feels the justices may have put it off while waiting for a full complement on the court, which they got when Neil Gorsuch was confirmed last month. Gorsuch, in fact, may be the justice to tip the opinion in one direction or the other, as previous Second Amendment cases were determined in a 5-4 ruling.

According to Eugene Volokh, professor of law at University of California at Los Angeles, this case is primed for the Supreme Court, as it deals with a basic constitutional right and “the lower courts are split on the issue.”

It would be a good time for the highest court to step in and settle the controversy. He also feels that while no one is sure how Gorsuch will vote, there is a “sense that he’s sympathetic to a broader view” of the Second Amendment.

The case may turn on how the court frames the issue. To Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California Irvine School of Law, the legal question to be settled is whether a state like California may determine its own rules on concealed-carry permits.

“The Second Amendment isn’t an absolute right,” Chemerinsky notes. Throughout British and American history, “there’s never been a right to have concealed weapons.”

But Eugene Volokh believes there’s a bigger issue at stake. If the state of California, which essentially bans open carry of a gun, makes it next to impossible for a typical citizen to get a concealed-carry permit, this is “tantamount to banning” the right to bear arms “except for a few favored people.”

Experts agree on one point. As Chemerinsky puts it, if Peruta is taken up, “no matter what the Supreme Court says, it will be a landmark decision.”


12 responses to “Second Amendment case Peruta vs. California may be heading to Supreme Court

  1. UC Irvine law school dean Erwin Chemerinsky has no business opining on this issue because he has made his prejudices very clear. From Wikipedia (

    “Raised in a working-class Jewish family on Chicago’s South Side … Chemerinsky supports gun control and disagreed with the decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. He thinks that even if an individual right to bear arms exists, the District of Columbia was justified in restricting that right because it believed that the law would lessen violence…. Chemerinsky believes that Roe v. Wade was correctly decided. He says, ‘Judicial activism is the label for the decision that people don’t like.’ He also believes that gay marriage should be legal….

    A study of legal publications between 2009 and 2013 found Chemerinsky to be the second-most frequently cited American legal scholar, behind Cass Sunstein….”

    Liked by 3 people

    • He should be Dean of Activism.

      Liked by 1 person

    • He thinks abortion is Constitutional and having a gun is not because he likes one and not the other.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Anonymous . . . that very kind of thinking proves that liberalism is a mental illness. Liberals are stunted in their mental capacity to accept that others may have thinking that is different from theirs . . . in their efforts to “control everyone around them” they indulge in this kind of stealing freedom from other individuals.

        Liked by 2 people

    • But, wait for it–through some tortuous Talmudic loophole, which no doubt he and Sunstein are specialists in, armed guards protecting his kind will be allowed to carry concealed weapons, as was more or less the case with thugs protecting Jewish banking houses 24/7 during the French Revolution, or with Cheka agents under the Bolsheviks a century later in Russia, or today with the armed shomrim in London, England or Brooklyn, NY, who act like private armies and drive around London in cars indistinguishable from police cars. Disarming us is a prerequisite to our final enslavement, which they call Tikkun Okam, or making the world right under Jewish domination.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. This is a very delicate matter.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Kevin J Lankford

    The second amendment clearly and with OUT any ambiguity the people have a right to keep and bear arms. Though it may single out only what they consider to be their most prevalent concern at the time of their composing the second amendment, which is the security of a free state, it does not preclude any and all other legitimate purposes. That is; “Shall Not Be Infringed” is as absolute and as void of alternate interpretation as it can possibly be stated.

    Any and all firearms regulation is infringement. NO federal or state agency, no legislator or judge, has any discretion whatsoever over who and under what circumstance a citizen of this country may possess a firearm. Their only Constitutional authority is in the prosecution of true crime, of which possession alone can not be. At least that is exactly and indisputably what our Constitution does say, whether they like it or not.

    When they dispute the true intent of our Constitution they are showing their contempt for the freedom and rights of the “PEOPLE”. If our Constitution were actually subject to “interpretation”, which too many think that is the purpose of the supreme court, then there just really was not much point in putting our ruling document into print.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. “Any and all firearms regulation is infringement.”
    THIS is the very point they do their damnedest to pretend DOESN’T exist,yet it’s the MOST CRUCIAL one in our Constitutional Right.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Dean Erwin Chemerinsky is a Constitution trashing freedom hater who thinks its okay to kill unborn babies but it’s not okay for decent, honest citizens to defend themselves against the criminals and crazies that are allowed to run loose in California!

    Liked by 1 person

  6. I’ve met both Eastman and Chemerinsky, and I’ve witnessed them engage in a formal debate. Chemerinsky is a snake, vile as his master Satan. If ever you have to shake hands with him, wear latex gloves and incinerate them immediately after.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s