A Federal Court Just Blocked An Attempt to Gut California’s Gun Laws

And the case’s Trump-loving plaintiff is not happy.

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

This morning, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a long-awaited opinion in a case challenging how concealed-weapon permits are issued in California. Writing on behalf of the seven-judge majority, Justice William Fletcher delivered a blow to pro-gun advocates, stating that “there is no Second Amendment right for members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.”

The case’s lead plaintiff, Edward Peruta, had argued that the state’s current system for issuing concealed-weapons permits is arbitrary and unconstitutional, since it gives sheriffs and police chiefs broad discretion in determining who has the “moral character” and “good cause” to pack a hidden gun. In his finding that such regulations are constitutional, Fletcher cited the Supreme Court’s 2008 Heller decision, which affirmed the right to keep guns for self-defense, but found that “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”

Peruta, whose lawsuit was backed by the National Rifle Association, is a Vietnam vet, ex-cop, public-access TV host, worm farmer, legal investigator, crime scene videographer, and serial litigant whose contentious past led some gun-rights advocates to question whether he was the ideal figure for such a high-profile case. “Do I believe that everybody should have a firearm? Absolutely not,” he told me when I profiled him last year. “Do I believe that there’s people who should be prohibited? Absolutely.” Yet he believed the Second Amendment was firmly on his side. “You don’t like it? Change the fuckin’ Constitution!”

“I am in absolute favor of Donald Trump, and the most import thing is the appointments to the Supreme Court since that may be the next stop.”

In 2014, two judges on the Ninth had ruled in Peruta’s favor. If that decision had stood, California would have become one of the 37 “shall issue” states, where concealed-carry permits may be issued to anyone who meets basic requirements such as a background check. But the court agreed to reconsider the case en banc after state Attorney General (and Senate hopeful) Kamala Harris intervened. The 11-member court heard arguments in the case last June. Both sides of the gun debate have been waiting for a ruling. Anticipating an appeal, the NRA has said it “presents an opportunity for the Supreme Court to settle some Second Amendment issues that desperately need resolving.”  

When I reached Peruta today, he said he had not yet spoken with his lawyers and had no comment on the ruling or plans to appeal. “I’m gonna defer to the powers that be,” he said. But he added, “I have have permits to carry and from this day forward I will be carrying openly.” (The court made no decisions regarding open carry.) 

Peruta also insisted that I note his strong support for another outspoken proponent of concealed carry. “I am even more convinced now that we need a Donald Trump in the White House,” he continued. “I am in absolute favor of Donald Trump, and the most import thing is the appointments to the Supreme Court since that may be the next stop.”


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend