We’d all had hopes that the current Supreme Court of the United States would review and overturn the Peruta decision, in which the Ninth Circuit had upheld the right of California authorities to issue concealed carry permits at will, rather than the growing modern norm of “shall issue.” I for one was surprised when SCOTUS denied cert. The brilliant dissent of Justice Clarence Thomas is here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-894_p86b.pdf. A tip of the hat to TN_Man, a regular commenter on this blog, who was the first to post it here.
Dave Workman is an old friend and a keen observer and analyst of 2A issues. His take on the matter is here: http://libertyparkpress.com/disfavored-right-scotus-denies-california-carry-case/.
Another long-time fighter for gun owners’ civil rights, David Hardy, weighs in here: http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2017/06/thoughts_on_the_16.php.
There is no more outspoken advocate for 2A rights than David Codrea, who comments here: https://www.ammoland.com/2017/06/scotus-keeps-door-open-on-travel-ban-slams-it-in-faces-of-gun-carriers/#axzz4lCAyagBU.
My own take? In too many jurisdictions, “may issue” – still the California standard – has become a synonym for “We’ll grant you the permit if you’re white, male, rich and politically connected.” In Northern California, several elected sheriffs have gone with a de facto Shall Issue policy, and as has happened everywhere else, predictions of blood running in the streets have been proven wrong.
Under “may issue,” there are generally two standards commonly cited for granting the permit. One is “the applicant carries large amounts of money or other valuables and is at higher risk for armed robbery.” That’s certainly a good reason, but a tenet of American law is that life is of much greater value than “mere property” including cash. The reason we are allowed to use deadly force against armed robbers is the accompanying threat to the victim’s life, not the cash in their pocket or bank deposit bag. We live in a world where people are robbed and murdered for their running shoes, for God’s sake.
The other most commonly cited reason for granting the permit in May Issue states is credible death threats to the applicant. Waiting for the death threat misses entirely the point of carrying a defensive firearm. You don’t wait to buy a fire extinguisher for your car until the first wisps of smoke drift up from under the dashboard; it’s too late. In the same vein, waiting to apply for a permit to carry a gun to protect yourself and your loved one is likely to leave you unarmed and helpless when the danger first strikes.
Shall Issue, now the prevailing norm, should be the universal norm, and there are good reasons why more than a dozen states now have gone a step farther and dispensed with the permit, allowing permitless carry (a/k/a Constitutional Carry) for all law-abiding citizens.
It is sad that SCOTUS turned down this opportunity to rectify this very real public safety concern.