Will Supreme Court Hear CA Case Questioning ‘Good Cause’ Requirement?

Like several other liberal states, California passed a law that requires an applicant for a concealed carry permit to show ‘good cause’ from granting the permit. The definition of ‘good cause’ is left up each county sheriff’s department. If you have a conservative sheriff who values the Second Amendment rights of citizens, there is a chance that self-defense may be sufficient grounds to show ‘good cause’ when submitting an application for a concealed carry permit.

However, if you have a liberal, Democrat as county sheriff, self-defense will not be considered as sufficient grounds to show ‘good cause’ and your concealed carry permit will be denied. They don’t believe that citizens should have the right to carry a concealed weapon in public for self-defense. This would prompt me to ask them if they prefer to show up at a crime scene to find innocent victims of criminals wounded, beaten, raped or dead?

This is the case Edward Peruta who lives in San Diego County. When he applied for a concealed carry permit, he listed self-defense as his ‘good cause’ reason for being allowed to carry a concealed weapon. The San Diego County Sheriff’s Department, run by Sheriff William D. Gore, who claims to be a Republican, ruled that self-defense was NOT a sufficient ‘good cause’ for the permit and denied his application.

The San Diego area is a beautiful area with a great year-round climate which attracts tens of thousands of tourists every year. It’s also home of the famed San Diego Zoo, Sea World so much more.

Yet the San Diego area, like much of California is very liberal. The area boasts about their huge LGBT community centered around the Balboa Park area. The current mayor of San Diego is Kevin Faulconer, a Republican who office in 2014 after the past several mayors resigned due to numerous scandals, including sexual harassment. The San Diego City Council consists of 5 Democrats and 4 Republicans.

Trending: July Economic Report Should Spell Doom for Democrats

Peruta did not agree with the denial of his concealed carry permit application and challenged it in court. His lawsuit questions the constitutionality of the ‘good cause’ requirement, since some do not believe that self-defense constitutes a justifiable ‘good cause’.

Peruta v. California was first heard in a federal district court which agreed with the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department and dismissed the lawsuit. Peruta then appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. He had to have a defeated attitude in appealing to the 9th Circuit, knowing that is the most liberal court in the land who rarely rules on law, but prefers to rule on agenda of the liberal left.

Supposedly, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals examined the Second Amendment to determine if truly protected the rights of people to carry concealed weapons in public. Had I been a betting man, I would have wagered a ton of money that the 9th Circuit Court would rule against Peruta and I would have won. The court ruled that California’s ‘good cause’ requirement did not violate the Second Amendment and therefore was constitutional.

Peruta then appealed his case to the US Supreme Court, who is to decide within the next few days whether or not they will hear the appeal. If they decline, then California will be allowed to continue to deny citizens the right to carry a concealed weapon for self-defense. If they do hear the case, then there is a good chance that the Supreme Court could overrule the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and Federal District Court rulings and strike down the ‘good cause’ requirement.

Newly sworn in Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch has been a longtime supporter of Second Amendment rights and his presence on the bench will lead the high court to hear the appeal and to rule in Peruta’s favor.


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.