In the wake of Orlando, “good cause” suddenly takes on new meaning.http://spectator.org/ripping-apart-the-second-amendment/
“Last week’s decision in Peralta v. San Diego County attacked the Second Amendment directly. And now, of course, Obama is blaming the Orlando massacre on everything except Islamic terrorism. Imagine how the Supreme Court will look – and how the Bill of Rights will be destroyed — by an Obama/Clinton court.”
Last week, in the case of Peralta v. County of San Diego, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the California law that requires applicants for concealed carry permits to show “good cause” — i.e., a need specific to the person — in order to obtain such a permit. The law leaves to county sheriffs how to define the term “good cause.”
California law doesn’t bar home ownership of firearms, but it does prohibit transporting loaded firearms even when going to or from a target range. It also exempts security guards and the like.
Sustaining a lower court’s decision upholding the California law, the Ninth Circuit could have limited its ruling by finding, as some other courts have, that the “good cause” requirement is reasonable. But it didn’t. The Ninth Circuit (the most liberal in the nation, and the most reversed by the Supreme Court), went far beyond to create a direct challenge to the Second Amendment. It held that “…the Second Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.”
Most of us thought that this matter was disposed of by the late Antonin Scalia’s opinion in the 2008 opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller.