While I was in the process of extracting myself from California, important progress was made on the litigation front for the the right to bear arms outside the home. After more than a year of waiting, three decision were rendered out of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, affirming that governments in this circuit must recognize a right to carry functional handguns for self-defense under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, the court ordered that self-defense must be accepted as meeting the various “good cause” requirements for the issuance of concealed-carry licenses in California and Hawaii.
|Drake v. Jerejian||New Jersey||Lost on appeal at USCA3.|
|Kachalsky v. Cacace||New York||Lost on appeal at USCA2.|
|Moore v. Madigan||Illinois||Won on appeal at USCA7.|
|Palmer v. D.C.||D.C.||Won at U.S. District Court.|
|Peruta v. San Diego||California||Petitioned to U.S. Supreme Court.|
|Richards v. Prieto||California||Lost on rehearing at USCA9.|
|Woollard v. Gallagher||Maryland||Lost on appeal at USCA4.|
Naturally, the legal battles aren’t over yet. The controlling decision in Peruta v. San Diego has been challenged by a number of actors (including the attorney general of California) and may yet face a rehearing by a larger panel on the overwhelmingly “liberal” circuit. Petitions to the U.S. Supreme Court are the next option for whichever side ultimately loses at the Ninth Circuit. Meanwhile, Drake v. Jerejian, out of the Third Circuit, is already at that step.
The question remains whether the Supreme Court will actually step in to settle the matter.