Keep your ear to the ground because chances are you will be hearing about Peruta v. California. This could be the case that affirms our right to bear arms.
Peruta v. California stems from the California law that gives the Sheriff a wide range of authority on who is allowed to have a carry permit. To receive a carry permit, the person must show “good cause” and convince the county Sheriff to issue the permit. Self-defense is not considered good cause in CA.
At issue in Peruta v. California is a state law that says conceal-carry permits will only be issued to those persons who have demonstrated to the satisfaction of their local county sheriff that they have a “good cause” for carrying a concealed firearm in public. What counts as a “good cause?” In the words of one San Diego official, “one’s personal safety is not considered good cause.” In effect, the local sheriff has vast discretion to pick and choose who gets a permit and who doesn’t. Because the guidelines are unclear there is a severe risk of arbitrary enforcement. As one previous court ruling on the matter observed, “in California the only way that the typical responsible, law-abiding citizen can carry a weapon in public for the lawful purpose of self-defense is with a concealed-carry permit. And, in San Diego County, that option has been taken off the table.”
Peruta is asking the courts to put that option back on the table in CA and everywhere else it has been denied, and basically make “shall issue” the law of the land.
If the court takes up this case, we’ll find out how its newest member will really rule on 2A issues. Ultimately, this could be the case that fills in some of the many gaps left by the Heller decision. If this passes, the urgency behind the national reciprocity act will ratchet down a bit more, because citizens in anti-gun states will finally be able to exercise their constitutional rights.