Peruta v. San Diego County

Last updated

Peruta v. San Diego County
Seal of the United States Courts, Ninth Judicial Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Full case name Edward Peruta et al v. County of San Diego et al.
DecidedJune 9, 2016
Citation824 F.3d 919
Case history
Prior history
Subsequent history Cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 1995 (2017).
Court membership
Judges sittingChief Circuit Judge Sidney R. Thomas; Senior Circuit Judge Harry Pregerson; Circuit Judges Barry G. Silverman, Susan P. Graber, M. Margaret McKeown, William A. Fletcher, Richard Paez. Consuelo Callahan, Carlos Bea, N. Randy Smith, and John B. Owens
Case opinions
MajorityFletcher, joined by Thomas, Pregerson, Graber, McKeown, Paez, Owens
ConcurrenceGraber, joined by Thomas, McKeown
DissentCallahan, joined by Silverman (in part), Bea (in full), Smith (in part)
DissentSilverman, joined by Bea
DissentSmith
Laws applied
Second Amendment
Abrogated by
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022)
Keywords

Peruta v. San Diego, 824 F.3d 919 (9th Cir. 2016), was a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit pertaining to the legality of San Diego County's restrictive policy regarding requiring documentation of "good cause" that "distinguish[es] the applicant from the mainstream and places the applicant in harm's way" (Cal. Pen. Code §§ 26150, 26155) before issuing a concealed carry permit.

Contents

After an initial ruling (2-1) in 2014 that held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protected the right to carry a concealed weapon, [1] the court reheard the case en banc , ultimately reversing the lower court ruling, saying that "there is no Second Amendment right for members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public." [2] While the ruling technically applied to all states and territories under the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit, it only applied to California and Hawaii in practice because the remaining states in the Ninth Circuit's area of responsibility have either Shall-Issue licensing policies or allow concealed carry without a permit.

The case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which in June 2017 denied the writ of certiorari, leaving the Ninth Circuit's en banc opinion in place. [3] [4] On June 23, 2022, the Supreme Court ruled in NYSPRA v. Bruen that the "good cause" requirement was unconstitutional.

Reasoning

The court reviewed the history of gun control cases in which laws forbidding the concealed carry of weapons were involved. They covered a time period from 1299 (in England) to the late 1800s US Supreme Court. The majority opinion was that there was an "overwhelming consensus" of historical case decisions establishing that there was never a time in history when courts believed that states could not prohibit concealed carry. Consequently, they concluded it could not be a violation of the long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment. [5]

The minority argued that a prohibition on concealed carry for the general public, accompanied by a similar prohibition on open carry, was a de facto gun ban, and therefore is unconstitutional under District of Columbia v. Heller. [5]

Details

Under San Diego's policy, a typical citizen in San Diego County cannot bear arms in public for self-defense because by San Diego's definition, typical citizens cannot distinguish [themselves] from the mainstream and receive concealed carry permits (Peruta v. San Diego (9th Cir, 02-13-14) p. 54.). Although prior to January 1, 2012, it was legal to openly carry an unloaded handgun in public, in October 2011 Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill that modifies the law on openly carrying an unloaded firearm to match the restrictions for openly carrying a loaded weapon, [6] effectively prohibiting (in all but limited circumstances) the open carry of firearms whether loaded or unloaded. (Cal. Pen. Code §§ 25850, 26155.) Thus, the court found San Diego County's restrictive policy in combination with California's denial of open carry ultimately resulted in the destruction of the typical law-abiding, responsible citizen's right to bear arms in any manner in public, thereby violating the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.

History

The February 13, 2014 decision is written by Diarmuid O'Scannlain, with Consuelo María Callahan joining and Sidney Runyan Thomas dissenting, and affirmed the right of responsible, law-abiding citizens to carry a handgun in public for lawful self-defense. [1] The primary plaintiff, Edward Peruta, was represented by attorneys Paul Neuharth Jr. from San Diego and Chuck Michel from Long Beach. [7] [8]

On February 27, 2014 California Attorney General Kamala Harris filed a petition for en banc review of the decision. As the state was not a formal party of the case, her action is not an appeal, but merely a request that the full court re-hear the case en-banc on its own initiative ( sua sponte ). The court denied Harris's petition on November 12, 2014. [9] [10] [11] [12] [ needs update ]

On December 3, 2014, the Ninth Circuit announced that a judge on the circuit made a sua sponte call for a vote on whether the case should be reheard en banc. The court gave the parties, and any Amici curiae, 21 days to file briefs setting forth their positions whether the case should be reheard en banc . [13]

On March 26, 2015, the Ninth Circuit announced that they would hear the case, along with Richards v. Prieto, en banc, including setting aside the original rulings in the cases and stating that they were not to be used as case law. The cases were argued on June 16, 2015.

On June 9, 2016, the en banc court reversed the lower court ruling, saying that "there is no Second Amendment right for members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public." [2] [14] The en banc ruling did not address the constitutionality of restrictions on open carry, leaving that matter open to potential future litigation.

On June 23, 2016, the plaintiff-appellants petitioned the Ninth Circuit for a full-court re-hearing. On August 15, 2016, the Ninth Circuit denied the petition for a full-court en banc rehearing. [15]

On January 12, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court. [16]

On June 26, 2017, the Supreme Court denied the writ, with Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch, dissenting: [4]

We should have granted certiorari in this case. The approach taken by the en banc court is indefensible, and the petition raises important questions that this Court should address. I see no reason to await another case. ... [T]he Second Amendment's core purpose further supports this conclusion that the right to bear arms extends to public carry. The Court in Heller emphasized that "self-defense" is "the central component of the [Second Amendment] right itself." ... The Court's decision to deny certiorari in this case reflects a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right. ... I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it. I respectfully dissent.

Reactions

The San Diego County Sheriff's Office issued a press release on February 21, 2014, stating it will not seek review of the decision by the entire membership of judges sitting in the Ninth Circuit, and that, "Should the decision of the Ninth Circuit become final, the Sheriff's Department will begin to issue CCW's in situations where the applicant has met all other lawful qualifications and has requested a CCW for purposes of self-defense." [17]

As a result of the court's original decision in 2014, the Orange County Sheriff's Department has loosened requirements for obtaining a concealed carry permit. Instead of requiring the applicant to have "good cause," the applicant need only to assert that a permit is needed for self-defense or personal safety. [18]

Scocca v. Smith

Scocca v. Smith [19] – In 2008, Tom Scocca, a former law enforcement officer, applied for a concealed-carry permit from Santa Clara County Sheriff Laurie Smith, and was denied because he could not show "good cause." [20] Scocca sued Smith, and the case was put on hold pending decisions in San Diego and Yolo County cases, and has since been dismissed.

Richards v. Prieto

In addition to Peruta, the same judges heard the Richards v. Prieto case at the same time, which challenged the handgun carry license policy of Yolo County Sheriff Ed Prieto. [21] [22] The case originally was entitled Sykes v. McGinness and included Sacramento County's then-sheriff, John McGinness, as a defendant. Sacramento County changed its licensing policy during the lawsuit, and the complaint against McGinness was dismissed.

After ruling on Peruta, the Ninth Circuit judges unanimously ruled in Richards:

In light of our holding in [Peruta] we conclude that the district court in this case erred in ruling Richard[s'] motion for summary judgment because the Yolo County policy impermissibly infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense.

Baker v. Kealoha

In addition to Peruta, the same judges heard the Baker v. Kealoha case at the same time, which challenged the handgun carry law in Hawaii. After ruling on Peruta, the Ninth Circuit judges in a 2–1 vote ruled in Baker:

In light of our disposition of the same issue in [Peruta] we conclude that the district court made an error of law when it concluded the Hawaii statutes at issue did not implicate protected conduct. [23]

NYSRPA v. Bruen

On June 23, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen , holding that New York's requirement that carry permit applicants demonstrate a good reason to require a permit was unconstitutional. The following week, the California Attorney General directed state law enforcement authorities to cease enforcement of California's own good cause restriction. As a result, the state is shall-issue, but the ease of acquiring a permit has yet to be determined as the Attorney General emphasized that issuing authorities may continue to enforce the good moral character requirement in a manner the objective nature of which is unknown.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Second Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment protecting the right to keep and bear arms

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms. It was ratified on December 15, 1791, along with nine other articles of the Bill of Rights. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court affirmed for the first time that the right belongs to individuals, for self-defense in the home, while also including, as dicta, that the right is not unlimited and does not preclude the existence of certain long-standing prohibitions such as those forbidding "the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill" or restrictions on "the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons". In McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) the Supreme Court ruled that state and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing upon this right. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022) assured the right to carry weapons in public spaces with reasonable exceptions.

Gun laws in the United States regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition. State laws vary considerably, and are independent of existing federal firearms laws, although they are sometimes broader or more limited in scope than the federal laws.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sidney R. Thomas</span> American judge (born 1953)

Sidney Runyan Thomas is an American lawyer and jurist serving as a senior U.S. circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit since 1996. He served as the Ninth Circuit's chief judge from 2014 to 2021. His chambers are located in Billings, Montana.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Open carry in the United States</span> Practice of carrying a visible firearm in some US states

In the United States, open carry refers to the practice of visibly carrying a firearm in public places, as distinguished from concealed carry, where firearms cannot be seen by the casual observer. To "carry" in this context indicates that the firearm is kept readily accessible on the person, within a holster or attached to a sling. Carrying a firearm directly in the hands, particularly in a firing position or combat stance, is known as "brandishing" and may constitute a serious crime, but is not the mode of "carrying" discussed in this article.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Diarmuid O'Scannlain</span> American judge (born 1937)

Diarmuid Fionntain O'Scannlain is a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. His chambers are located in Portland, Oregon.

In the United States, the right to keep and bear arms is modulated by a variety of state and federal statutes. These laws generally regulate the manufacture, trade, possession, transfer, record keeping, transport, and destruction of firearms, ammunition, and firearms accessories. They are enforced by state, local and the federal agencies which include the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. It ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms—unconnected with service in a militia—for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that certain restrictions on guns and gun ownership were permissible. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense or whether the right was only intended for state militias.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gun laws in California</span>

Gun laws in California regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the state of California in the United States.

<i>Nordyke v. King</i> US federal court case

Nordyke v. King was a case in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in which a ban of firearms on all public property and whether the Second Amendment should be applied to the state and local governments is to be decided. After several hearings at different levels of the federal court system, Alameda County, California promised that gun shows could be held on county property, essentially repudiating its ordinance.

McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms", as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment and is thereby enforceable against the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gun laws in Colorado</span>

Gun laws in Colorado regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the state of Colorado in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gun laws in the District of Columbia</span>

Gun laws in the District of Columbia regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in Washington, D.C.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gun laws in Hawaii</span>

Gun laws in Hawaii regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the state of Hawaii, United States. Hawaii's gun laws are among the most restrictive in the country.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gun laws in Maryland</span>

Gun laws in Maryland regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the U.S. state of Maryland.

<i>Woollard v. Gallagher</i> Civil lawsuit

Woollard v. Sheridan, 863 F. Supp. 2d 462, reversed sub. nom., Woollard v Gallagher, 712 F.3d 865, was a civil lawsuit brought on behalf of Raymond Woollard, a resident of the State of Maryland, by the Second Amendment Foundation against Terrence Sheridan, Secretary of the Maryland State Police, and members of the Maryland Handgun Permit Review Board. Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' refusal to grant a concealed carry permit renewal to Mr. Woollard on the basis that he "...ha[d] not demonstrated a good and substantial reason to wear, carry or transport a handgun as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger in the State of Maryland" was a violation of Mr. Woollard's rights under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, and therefore unconstitutional. The trial court found in favor of Mr. Woollard, However, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review that decision.

<i>Moore v. Madigan</i> Pair of court cases

Moore v. Madigan is the common name for a pair of cases decided in 2013 by the U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, regarding the constitutionality of the State of Illinois' no-issue legislation and policy regarding the carry of concealed weapons. The plaintiffs, Michael Moore, Mary Shepard and the Second Amendment Foundation, sought an injunction against Illinois attorney general Lisa Madigan, Illinois Governor Patrick Quinn, and other named defendants, barring them from enforcing two key provisions of the Illinois Statutes prohibiting public possession of a firearm or other weapon.

People v. Aguilar, 2 N.E.3d 321, was an Illinois Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon (AUUF) statute violated the right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment. The Court stated that this was because the statute amounted to a wholesale statutory ban on the exercise of a personal right that was specifically named in and guaranteed by the United States Constitution, as construed by the United States Supreme Court. A conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Firearm (UPF) was proper because the possession of handguns by minors was conduct that fell outside the scope of the Second Amendment's protection.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">History of concealed carry in the United States</span> Historical aspect of American gun law

The history of concealed carry in the United States is the history of public opinion, policy, and law regarding the practice of carrying concealed firearms, especially handguns.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), abbreviated NYSRPA v. Bruen and also known as NYSRPA II or Bruen to distinguish it from the 2020 case, is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court related to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The case concerned the constitutionality of the 1911 Sullivan Act, a New York State law requiring applicants for a pistol concealed carry license to show "proper cause", or a special need distinguishable from that of the general public, in their application.

References

  1. 1 2 Peruta v. County of San Diego, 742F.3d1144 (9th Cir.2014).
  2. 1 2 Peruta v. County of San Diego, 824F.3d919 , 924(9th Cir.2016).
  3. ↑ Liptak, Adam (June 26, 2017). "Supreme Court Turns Down Case on Carrying Guns in Public". New York Times. Retrieved June 27, 2017.
  4. 1 2 "Peruta v. California, 582 U.S. ____ (2017)" (PDF). Retrieved June 30, 2017.
  5. 1 2 Ford, Matt (June 9, 2016). "No Constitutional Right to Concealed Firearms, Federal Appeals Court Rules". theatlantic.com. Retrieved June 10, 2016.
  6. ↑ McGreevy, Patrick and Riccardi, Nicholas (October 10, 2011). "Brown Bans Open Carrying of Handguns", Los Angeles Times . Retrieved December 9, 2011.
  7. ↑ Kopel, David. "Ninth Circuit strikes California's restrictive rule against licensed carry of handguns". Washington Post. Retrieved February 13, 2014.
  8. ↑ "Court Tosses California's Concealed Weapons Rules". Kpbs.org. February 13, 2014. Retrieved February 13, 2014.
  9. ↑ Karen Gullo (November 12, 2014). "California Loses Bid to Revisit Ruling Striking Gun Rules". Bloomberg.com. Retrieved March 16, 2015.
  10. ↑ "MILLER: California attorney general tries to overturn gun carry ruling in 9th Circuit". The Washington Times. Retrieved March 16, 2015.
  11. ↑ "Attorney General Kamala D. Harris Appeals Ninth Circuit Concealed Weapons Permit Ruling | State of California - Department of Justice - Kamala D. Harris Attorney General". Oag.ca.gov. February 27, 2014. Retrieved March 16, 2015.
  12. ↑ "California Attorney General Appeals Judge's Ruling On San Diego County's Gun Rules". KPBS Public Media. February 28, 2014. Retrieved March 16, 2015.
  13. ↑ "Peruta v. San Diego County" (PDF). Cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov. Retrieved March 16, 2015.
  14. ↑ Ann E. Marimow (June 9, 2016). "Appeals court: No Second Amendment right to carry concealed firearms in public". Washington Post.
  15. ↑ "Order for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit" (PDF). Retrieved August 17, 2016.
  16. ↑ "NRA & CRPA Petition U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Peruta v. County of San Diego". January 13, 2017.
  17. ↑ "San Diego Sheriff's Decision Regarding Ninth Circuit's Opinion on CCWs". Apps.sdsheriff.net. Retrieved February 22, 2014.
  18. ↑ Montero, David (February 21, 2014). "Sheriff makes it easier for concealed weapon to be legal". The OC Register. Retrieved February 24, 2014.
  19. ↑ "Scocca v. Smith". Leagle. Retrieved April 14, 2015.
  20. ↑ "Marin sheriff fires back at concealed-carry rules eased by court". Marin Independent Journal. February 18, 2014. Retrieved April 14, 2015.
  21. ↑ "SAF, CGF Score Ninth Circuit Victory in Richards Carry Case". calgunsfoundation.org. Retrieved March 16, 2015.
  22. ↑ "Case Challenging California's Yolo County Gun Carry Permit Law Brought Back from Dead". Reason.com. March 6, 2014. Retrieved March 16, 2015.
  23. ↑ "Christopher Baker v. Louis Kealoha" (PDF). Cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov. Retrieved March 16, 2015.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.