In a victory for gun control advocates, a federal appeals court said Thursday people do not have a right to carry concealed weapons in public under the 2nd Amendment.
An 11-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said law enforcement officials can require applicants for a concealed weapons permit to show they are in immediate danger or have another good reason for a permit beyond self-defense.
The decision overturned a 2014 ruling by a smaller 9th Circuit panel and came in a lawsuit over the denial of concealed weapons permits by a sheriff in San Diego County.
California generally prohibits people from carrying handguns in public without such a permit. State law requires applicants to show good moral character, have good cause and take a training course.
In San Diego County, the sheriff required applicants to show supporting documents such as restraining orders against possible attackers to show good cause for a permit. The requirement prompted a lawsuit by residents who were denied a permit.
During oral arguments before the 11-judge 9th Circuit panel, Paul Clement, an attorney for the residents, argued that the self-defense standard should be sufficient and asking for more violates the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.
California Solicitor General Edward DuMont countered that there was a long and rich tradition of restricting concealed weapons in cities and towns. California officials sought to intervene in the case after the San Diego sheriff declined to appeal.
California officials said loosening concealed weapons permitting standards and allowing more people to carry guns threatens law enforcement officials and endangers the public.
Clement countered that there was no evidence that crime went up in counties such as Fresno and Sacramento that had more permissive "good cause" standards.
How does this impact Kansas and Missouri?
In a 7-4 vote, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a California law that says applicants must provide a "good cause" to obtain a concealed-carry permit. Examples would be people who are being stalked or threatened, celebrities who fear for their safety, and those who routinely carry large amounts of cash.
Don Pind, a firearms instructor at the Show-me Shooters Indoor Range in Claycomo, has a friend out in Los Angeles.
"He can't carry it for protection any other place, he can carry it the two days of the week when he makes deposits in the bank. They've got some very restrictive laws out there," Pind said.
The offices of the Missouri and Kansas attorneys general told 41 Action News decisions by the court in California are not binding here.
In Kansas, you don't need a license to conceal carry.
"We're finding a lot of states don't completely go along with federal law," Pind said.
He adds some lawmakers may take advantage of the ruling.
"Whether they want to attack it or not, I don't look for anything to happen this year, but if someone wants to get elected and thinks this is the best way to do it, it could happen, they could use this as a precedence to make states ask you why you want to get a license to carry," Pind said.
The National Rifle Association called the ruling "out of touch."
"It's really a hot button that no one wants to push," Pind said.
Now only two other federal appeals courts have taken up the issue and both ruled the way the judges in California did Thursday.
Legal experts say this is dispute will ultimately wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court.
-----
