The Supreme Court may be on a path to decide whether or not law enforcement officials can require Americans to provide “good cause” before granting them a concealed carry permit. Typically acceptable reasons are that the applicant carries a lot of cash, works as a security guard, or is under imminent threat of bodily harm. Applicants who use “self defense” as a justification for their desire to obtain a permit are regularly rejected in areas with less respect for the right to bear arms.
A case called Peruta v. San Diego could soon force the Supreme Court to clarify what is and what isn’t enough cause to obtain a permit. Will the court punt and bounce the decision back to the states? Or will the court follow its line of thinking in Heller v. D.C. and McDonald v. Chicago and extend the right to carry a concealed firearm to all law abiding Americans, not just those whom police deem worthy?
New Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch will weigh in on any potential decision the court might make in regards to Peruta v. San Diego, and second amendment supporters will see just exactly what they got in return for supporting Donald Trump.
Frank Miniter writes in The American Conservative that the decision in Peruta could dismantle onerous restrictions on the ability to obtain a permit to carry a concealed firearm.
When I asked [Paul] Clement [former solicitor general of the U.S. and currently lawyer for the plaintiffs in Peruta v. San Diego] why he got involved, he said, “This case squarely presents the issue whether the Second Amendment is going to apply outside the home. Having already worked on the McDonald case and defeated the argument that the Second Amendment was a lesser right, not incorporated against the States, this seemed like a natural sequel.”
When asked where he sees this case going, Clement said, “The Supreme Court will eventually get back involved to clarify some of the disagreements across the circuits. The Supreme Court always looks for the best vehicle to address important issues. I do not think issue will be any different.”
If this case makes it to the high court—and if the Supreme Court then rules as it did in Heller and McDonald—a decision could dismantle other onerous restrictions on a person’s ability to obtain a permit to carry a concealed handgun. It is a stretch to speculate that this could make America into a shall-issue nation, meaning local authorities would be forced to grant anyone a permit to carry a weapon who was not legally barred from doing so; still, the ramifications of such a decision would be profound.
If the Supreme Court declines agree to hear Peruta, the Ninth Circuit’s decision will remain the law in the Western states that make up the Ninth Circuit. It would take years for a new challenge to the decision to be appealed to the Supreme Court.
Read more here.
Sen. Flake and Judge Gorsuch on the Second Amendment
Latest posts by Richard C. Young (see all)
- College Admission Scandal Probed by WSJ‘s Peggy Noonan - March 18, 2019
- Arthur M. Melzer: Speaking of Y When the Target is Z. - March 18, 2019
- President Trump, What do We do About Amazon? - March 18, 2019