“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,” washingtonpost.com reports. “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 the legislature may regulate what mode of carrying to allow (open or concealed), but the legislature may not make it impossible for the vast majority of Californians to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms.” Here’s the money shot . . .
[I]f self-defense outside the home is part of the core right to “bear arms” and the California regulatory scheme prohibits the exercise of that right, no amount of interest-balancing under a heightened form of means-ends scrutiny can justify San Diego’s policy . . .
A law effecting a “destruction of the right” rather than merely burdening it is, after all, an infringement under any light….
Is this the beginning of the end of the Golden State’s civilian disarmament campaign? Hardly. The ruling will probably be re-examined by the 9th Circuit en banc (a bench consisting of a dozen or more of the judges in that court). They may toss the decision.
Or they may not. Either way, this may be the beginning of the beginning of the end of California’s jihad against residents’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. Residents of New Jersey, Hawaii and other “may issues” states await further developments with bated breath. [h/t JLR]