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.”
DCG

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dr. Eowyn
Admin
Dr. Eowyn
3 years ago

UC Irvine law school dean Erwin Chemerinsky has no business opining on this issue because he has made his prejudices very clear. From Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Chemerinsky): “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… Read more »

Anonymous
Anonymous
3 years ago
Reply to  Dr. Eowyn

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

Auntie Lulu
Auntie Lulu
3 years ago
Reply to  Anonymous

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.

Dan
Dan
3 years ago
Reply to  Dr. Eowyn

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,… Read more »

Meetic 2017
3 years ago

This is a very delicate matter.

Kevin J Lankford
Kevin J Lankford
3 years ago

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… Read more »

Auntie Lulu
Auntie Lulu
3 years ago

Amen to all you have written.

truckjunkie
truckjunkie
3 years ago

“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.

daveyone1
3 years ago
Patrick
Patrick
3 years ago

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!

Jurist
Jurist
3 years ago

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.