9th Circuit Court of Appeals: No Constitutional Right to Concealed Carry of Firearms

In another ruling that continues to make non-lethal stun and pepper spray products one of the best choices for self defense, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that there is no constitutional right to the concealed carry of firearms. The case was brought forward by Edward Peruta after the San Diego, CA Sheriff's Department rejected his application for a concealed carry permit due to lack of "good cause". The Department's standard for "good cause" included having a job or owning a business that involves the carrying of a large amount of cash or being the victim of a threat or stalker. Peruta's application did not include any of those factors but simply included his desire to protect himself. 

This decision overturns the initial 3 panel 9th Circuit decision that affirmed the right of law abiding citizens to concealed carry under the Second Amendment. While Concealed Carry Permits will still be allowed, applicants will need to meet the good cause standards. 

This case follows the Supreme Court's March 2016 rejection of the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision in Caetano v. Massachusetts which supported Massachusetts' Stun Guns ban by finding the weapons were not protected by the Second Amendment because they were not in common use at the time of the nation's founding. In that case, a woman was arrested and convicted of having a stun gun after police found it in her purse while looking into an unrelated report of shoplifting. The woman carried it for protection against an abusive ex-boyfriend and had appealed her conviction based on her right under to the Second Amendment to self defense. 

The important take away from these cases is that is that you should continue to stay up-to-date on the ever changing laws involving firearms and weapons used for self defense. Although some findings have resulted in additional restrictions, the general consensus has been an affirmation of the fundamental right of self defense. In their Caetano decision, Justice Alito and Justice Thomas made a pretty strong case for carrying a stun gun: 

After a “bad altercation” with an abusive boyfriend put her in the hospital, Jaime Caetano found herself homeless and “in fear for [her] life.” She obtained multiple restraining orders against her abuser, but they proved futile. So when a friend offered her a stun gun “for self-defense against [her] former boy friend,” Caetano
accepted the weapon.

It is a good thing she did. One night after leaving work, Caetano found her ex-boyfriend “waiting for [her] outside.” He “started screaming” that she was “not gonna [expletive deleted] work at this place” any more because she “should be home with the kids” they had together. Caetano’s abuser towered over her by nearly a foot and outweighed her by close to 100 pounds. But she didn’t need physical strength to protect herself. She stood her ground, displayed the stun gun, and announced: “I’m not gonna take this anymore. . . . I don’t wanna have to [use the stun gun on] you, but if you don’t leave me alone, I’m gonna have to.” The gambit worked. The ex-boyfriend "got scared and he left [her] alone.” 
For products that will help you scare off attackers and get them to leave you alone, check out our Stun Guns and Tasers for Women collections. Also, don't forget that we also have compiled Stun Gun Laws, Taser Laws, and Pepper Spray Laws to help keep you aware of restrictions in your state. 
Previous post Next Post


Leave a comment