Peruta Team Asking Supreme Court to Hear Appeal

By Dean Weingartenninthcircuitcourt-of-appeals-image

Dean Weingarten
Dean Weingarten

Arizona – -(Ammoland.com)-
Edward Peruta and his fellow plaintiffs have decided to have their councel petition the Supreme Court to hear an appeal to the last Ninth Circuit decision in The Peruta case.

Edward Peruta applied to the San Diego County Sheriff for a permit to carry concealed. The Sheriff refused to grant him a permit. Peruta's case was wrapped in with another case making its way through the courts, with other plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were ruled against in the district court and appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

The Ninth Circuit ruled that County Sheriffs could not use their discretion to arbitrarily deny concealed carry permits, because California had outlawed most open carry; therefore the Sheriff could not arbitrarily deny carry outside the home to the general population.

After a change in the leadership of the Ninth Circuit, the Ninth decided to set aside the decision of the three judge panel, and hear the appeal en banc. In the en banc decision, the Ninth ignored the ban on open carry and concluded that it was constitutional for sheriffs to use discretion to deny concealed carry permits.  The orders and opinions at the Ninth Circuit are available here.

The legal team of C.D. Michel and Associates has filed a Petition For Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. The question filed is whether, when open carry is prohibited, can county sheriffs ban most people from obtaining a concealed carry permit, when they have the option to grant those permits? Here is the question as given in the petition:

QUESTION PRESENTED

Under California law, openly carrying a handgun outside the home is generally prohibited, but concealed carry is permissible with a license. While an applicant must demonstrate “good cause” to obtain a concealed-carry license, county sheriffs can—and many do—interpret “good cause” to include a desire to carry a handgun for self-defense. The San Diego County Sheriff takes a different, and much more restrictive, approach, defining “good cause” to require a particularized need for self-defense that differentiates the applicant from the ordinary citizen. The majority of a three-judge panel held the Sheriff’s policy unconstitutional, concluding that ordinary, law-abiding citizens may not be deprived of the ability to obtain concealed-carry licenses for self-defense when state law already prohibits open carry. But the majority of an en banc panel reached the opposite conclusion, holding that the Sheriff may deny concealed-carry licenses on any terms he chooses because there is no independent constitutional right to concealed carry. In reaching that conclusion, the Ninth Circuit added to the sharp division among the lower courts over whether the Second Amendment allows ordinary, law-abiding citizens to be deprived of all means of carrying a handgun for self-defense.
The question presented is: 
 
Whether the Second Amendment entitles ordinary, law-abiding citizens to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense in some manner, including concealed carry when open carry is forbidden by state law.
 The Supreme Court hears only a small percentage of cases that petition to have their case heard. This case may be “ripe” with a split in the Circuits; that is simply speculation. Whether a replacement for Justice Scalia will be appointed to the court in time to hear the case, if it is accepted, is also uncertain.

©2017 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.

Link to Gun Watch

About Dean Weingarten;

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

9
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
3 Comment threads
6 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
4 Comment authors
Barry HirshJim MacklinWild BillCharles Nichols Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Barry Hirsh
Guest
Barry Hirsh

(Dean, it’s “counsel” as used in your first paragraph, not “council”.)

Jim Macklin
Guest
Jim Macklin

The 7th Circuit found the State of Illinois gun laws to be unconstitutional because the State banned open carry and did not have a concealed carry system. The State was given 180 days to create a constitutional system or all the laws would end, it would be unregulated, restricted or controlled.
The State did pass a shall issue concealed carry law. Open carry remains illegal [and a felony].
Exactly what the NRA told the court is not clear from the comments. The transcripts, a link to a free version, would be nice.

Charles Nichols
Guest
Charles Nichols

The 7th Circuit in Moore v. Madigan held that Illinois could prohibit concealed carry as per the Heller decision. The NRA subsequently lobbied the Illinois legislature to enact an unconstitutional ban on Open Carry. The current Illinois law is unconstitutional, as was the prior law which the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down.

The NRA has not challenged the new Illinois Open Carry ban.

Folks can find links to all of the briefs filed in Peruta v. San Diego, including the oral arguments, at my website here -> http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=4712

Charles Nichols
Guest
Charles Nichols

Dean Weingarten,

The 9th Circuit did not “ignore” California’s Open Carry bans, the constitutionality of those bans was not before the court. The NRA told the court that California’s Open Carry bans are constitutional. More than that, the NRA told the court that California can, should, and must ban Open Carry.

The NRA cert petition claims that there are four splits when, in fact, there are none.

NRA Tells Supreme Court Open Carry is Perverse -> http://newsblaze.com/business/legal/nra-tells-supreme-court-open-carry-is-perverse_72955/

Jim Macklin
Guest
Jim Macklin

The NRA comments filed in the amicus brief are not what Mr. Nichols says.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2015/05/05/10-56971%204-30%20Amicus%20NRA.pdf

It is 32 pages and it is a legal argument, written in legal terms. It is worth reading.

Charles Nichols
Guest
Charles Nichols

Jim Macklin, you seem to be suffering from a cognitive defect. It is the NRA’s cert petition which says that Open Carry is perverse and it was the NRA’s Opening Brief on Appeal and its Petition for a Full court hearing which said that Open Carry can, should and must be banned.

You guys are morons and this is why you guys are going to lose.

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

@Chas Nickles, You just keep on believing that we are morons and loosing.

Jim Macklin
Guest
Jim Macklin

I read the amicus brief the NRA filed, is there something else that you failed to link to?

The Blaze is not a court document.

Barry Hirsh
Guest
Barry Hirsh

How pride goeth before the fall.