Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Store

The Second Amendment states:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It is spelled out, guaranteeing Americans the right to bear arms, yet this is one of our most controversial amendments.

take our poll - story continues below

Do you think Democrats will push out Representative Ilhan Omar over her anti-Semitism?

  • Do you think Democrats will push out Representative Ilhan Omar over her anti-Semitism?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Keep and Bear updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

There have been two major cases involving the 2nd Amendment that worked its way up into the Supreme Court, which was: District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 and McDonald v. City of Chicago in 2010.

Now it’s looking as if there will be another milestone case, Peruta v. California, if the Supreme Court agrees to hear them.

At issue is the right to keep and bear arms outside the home. The Heller case specifically applies to situations within the home. Those who have petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case are hoping the justices will see it as a logical extension of their earlier opinions.

The case arose when Edward Peruta and other gun owners who lived in or near San Diego, Calif., couldn’t get concealed-carry permits in their county. The Sheriff’s Department handles permit requests and requires “good cause” to carry a gun outside of the home. This does not mean a generalized concern for safety, but something specific, such as fear of domestic violence or a regular need to move large amounts of money.

There were two separate lawsuits challenging the interpretation of “good cause,” but the district courts found no violation of the Second Amendment.

Then, in 2014, a three-judge panel on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the policy did indeed violate the right to bear arms for self-defense. The state, however, got a new hearing in front of 11 9th Circuit judges, who decided 7-4, the restrictions for concealed-carry permits were allowable.

The case has now been appealed to the Supreme Court and though the Justices have rescheduled its consideration several times, some experts feel the court is finally ready to hear Peruta.

“I suspect they’re going to grant it,” said John Eastman, former law dean at Chapman University and the director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence.

According to Fox News, Eastman said, “it’s percolating all across the country.”

What do you think? Should the Supreme Court decide to hear the case?

 

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

Become an Insider!

Enter your email address below to stay in the loop and read our latest and greatest updates!

Send this to a friend