California is a state run by very liberal, anti-American Democrats who have been busy passing a number of anti-2nd Amendment laws. One law gives local law enforcement officials to decide if there is ‘good cause’ for a person to be issued a concealed carry permit. That leaves awarding the permits completely to the discretion of the county sheriff. If that sheriff is anti-gun, no one may be awarded a permit, spurring a lawsuit that is now before the Supreme Court.
Does the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms extend outside the home? Does it cover the right to carry concealed firearms in public? An important case now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court for possible review may provide definitive legal answers.
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.”
A person may live in an area where they are in personal danger whenever they venture out of their home, so they feel they need a concealed carry permit for personal protection. If the county sheriff is anti-gun, he or she could deny issuing the permit because he or she says there is no ‘good cause’. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will decide to hear the case and will rule the law unconstitutional.