## Facts

- California generally restricted public firearm carrying by prohibiting open carry for most people (subject to limited exceptions) and requiring a license for concealed carry.
- State law required a showing of “good cause” to obtain a concealed-carry license and allowed counties to apply their own standards for “good cause.”
- San Diego County required a particularized, documented need for self-defense beyond a generalized concern for personal safety, requiring circumstances distinguishing the applicant from the general public.
- Petitioners alleged that, combined with open-carry restrictions, the “good cause” standard effectively prevented ordinary, law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns in public for self-defense.
- Petitioners filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against county sheriffs’ concealed-carry licensing policies.
- District courts granted summary judgment to the counties; a Ninth Circuit panel reversed; the Ninth Circuit reheard en banc and affirmed the district courts, holding there is no Second Amendment right for the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.
- Petitioners sought Supreme Court review; the Court denied certiorari. Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch, dissented from the denial.

## Issues

1. Whether the Second Amendment protects a right of ordinary, law-abiding citizens to carry handguns in public for self-defense, including via concealed carry when open carry is restricted by state law.
2. Whether the Second Amendment protects a right of members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public, such that a discretionary “good cause” licensing policy is unconstitutional.
3. Whether the Supreme Court should review a regulatory scheme alleged to operate as a near-total prohibition on public carry for self-defense.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari and issued no merits opinion.
- The denial left in place the Ninth Circuit en banc judgment that the Second Amendment does not protect a right of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.
- Justice Thomas (joined by Justice Gorsuch) dissented from the denial, arguing the Court should decide whether the Second Amendment protects public carry for self-defense and criticizing the practical effect of California’s restrictions.

## Legal Principles

- A denial of certiorari does not decide the merits of the constitutional question and leaves the lower-court judgment intact.
- Under the controlling Ninth Circuit en banc decision left undisturbed by the denial, the Second Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry a concealed firearm in public.
- On that Ninth Circuit framing, because concealed carry was treated as outside the Second Amendment’s scope, a state may impose restrictions on concealed carry, including a “good cause” licensing requirement, without violating the Second Amendment.
- The Ninth Circuit expressly did not decide whether, or to what degree, the Second Amendment protects a right to carry firearms openly in public.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari left standing the Ninth Circuit’s en banc rule that concealed public carry by ordinary citizens is not protected by the Second Amendment, while a dissent argued that the Court should address whether a state may effectively bar public carry for self-defense through combined open-carry restrictions and restrictive concealed-carry licensing.


Peruta v. California, 137 S. Ct. 1995 (2017)