February 13, 2014, just in time for Valentine’s Day, the Ninth Circuit expressed its love for constitutional order by firing an arrow through the heart of California’s arbitrary handgun carry licensing scheme. The court’s decision in Peruta v. County of San Diego[SUP]1[/SUP] effectively struck down the Golden State’s requirement that individuals wishing to carry a handgun in public for self-defense demonstrate “good cause”[SUP]2[/SUP] to exercise what is, in fact, a fundamental constitutional right.[SUP]3[/SUP][h=5]RELATED[/h]
Not surprisingly, Peruta sparked significant debate. Forty-four states already allow responsible adults to carry handguns for self-defense, openly or concealed, absent some specific reason to disarm them. But California — America’s media and cultural capital[SUP]4[/SUP] and home to over a tenth of the nation’s population — stands as a significant outlier. The court all but invited certiorari review relating to the publicly contentious topic of carrying handguns for self-defense, punctuating its historical exegesis of the right to bear arms with pointed criticism of Second, Third, and Fourth Circuit opinions that had upheld substantially identical “proper cause,” “justifiable need,” and “good and substantial reason” requirements, respectively.[SUP]5[/SUP] Instead, the Ninth Circuit followed the Seventh Circuit, which had struck down Illinois’ prohibition on the carrying of defensive handguns.[SUP]6[/SUP]To be sure, Peruta fully deserves the attention it has attracted for its handling of the handgun carry issue. Were it notable for nothing else, the case would still stand as a landmark opinion. But Perutamay prove vastly more consequential than whatever impact it may have on an individual’s ability to carry handguns as a precaution against violent crime. Peruta’s methodology is the real story. Contrary to the prevailing approach, the Ninth Circuit took seriously the question of what conduct the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect. It did not, as have other courts, second-guess the Framers by refusing to question modern political outcomes.The Heller[SUP]7[/SUP] majority and Justice Thomas’s decisive McDonald[SUP]8[/SUP]concurrence concerned themselves primarily with the constitutional text’s original public meaning in light of established American tradition. In Heller, text and history pointed to the Second Amendment’s codification of an individual right to bear arms, the central purpose of which, Heller declared repeatedly, is self-defense.[SUP]9[/SUP] Accordingly, Heller stridently rejected Justice Breyer’s interest-balancing approach.[SUP]10[/SUP] Washington, D.C.’s armed home self-defense ban could not survive a constitutional right securing the self-defense interest in arms, and since handguns are “arms,” neither could the city’s handgun ban.
- [h=3]Peruta, the Home-Bound Second Amendment, and Fractal Originalism byDarrell A.H. Miller[/h]
- [h=3]Does the Second Amendment Protect Firearms Commerce?by David B. Kopel[/h]
- [h=3]Good Cause Requirements for Carrying Guns in Public by Joseph Blocher[/h]
Continued at the link.
http://harvardlawreview.org/2014/04/the-second-amendment-as-a-normal-right/
