Ninth Circuit rules “good cause” for CCW unconstitutional

This just in.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that California local officials that require “good cause” to apply for a carry permit is unconstitutional.

The court, according to the initial analysis we’ve seen wrote that states may strictly regulate or ban open carry or concealed carry, but not both.

The case is Peruta v. San Diego.

Ninth Circuit strikes California’s restrictive rule against licensed carry of handguns
By David Kopel
February 13 at 1:17 pm

Washington Post

The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Peruta v. San Diego, released minutes ago, affirms the right of law-abiding citizens to carry handguns for lawful protection in public.

California law has a process for applying for a permit to carry a handgun for protection in public, with requirements for safety training, a background check, and so on. These requirements were not challenged. The statute also requires that the applicant have “good cause,” which was interpreted by San Diego County to mean that the applicant is faced with current specific threats. (Not all California counties have this narrow interpretation.) The Ninth Circuit, in a 2-1 opinion written by Judge O’Scannlain, ruled that Peruta was entitled to Summary Judgement, because the “good cause” provision violates the Second Amendment.

The Court ruled that a government may specify what mode of carrying to allow (open or concealed), but a government may not make it impossible for the vast majority of Californians to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Eugene Volokh may be too modest to say so, but the Court cites him four times, to his articles Implementing the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for Self-Defense: An Analytical Framework and a Research Agenda, 56 UCLA L. Rev. 1443 (2009); and The First and Second Amendments, 109 Colum. L. Rev. Sidebar 97 (2009). I got one cite, for  The Second Amendment in the Nineteenth Century, 1998 B.Y.U. L. Rev 1359 (1998).