Supreme Court may be ready to go big on guns

Arizona’s gun laws are significantly less restrictive than those in California (that’s why we live here and not there, right?). But anyone who carries firearms in this state should be paying attention to a court case that originated a few hundred miles west. Because if the U.S. Supreme Court agrees to take on Peruta vs. California, it could be the most important gun-rights ruling we’ve seen in years.

That’s a big “if,” of course: The Supreme Court first has to agree to hear the case. The court keeps putting off the decision, and there are only a few weeks left in this term.

But it will be big news if the court says it will answer Peruta’s basic question, which is whether the Second Amendment grants individuals the right to bear arms for self-defense outside of the home.

The last landmark Supreme Court ruling, District of Columbia vs. Heller in 2008, ruled for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms.

But the case focused on the right to self-defense inside the home. It didn’t answer detailed questions about individual rights to carry in public — even though many states (including Arizona) now effectively treat open and concealed carry as individual rights.

That’s why Peruta vs. California could be so consequential.

George Peruta and others were denied concealed-carry permits, even though they met all the other requirements, because their lives weren’t being directly threatened. California law requires that applicants have “good cause” to get a permit, and the sheriff in San Diego has decided that general self-defense is not a good cause.

Peruta and others sued, arguing that their Second Amendment rights had been infringed.

The case made its way to the 9th Circuit, which not only upheld California’s “good cause” requirement but also ruled that concealed carry is not protected by the Second Amendment.

The sheriff and state have filed briefs arguing that Peruta’s Second Amendment rights weren’t infringed because “a person may ... carry a loaded handgun in many areas, outside incorporated cities, that are not public or where it would be lawful to discharge the weapon. Licensed hunters and fishermen may carry handguns while engaged in those activities.”

But Peruta argues that effectively prohibits people from carrying for selfdefense. How are you supposed to defend yourself in public if you’re only allowed to carry on private property outside of town or while surrounded by fish?

As you’d expect, the National Rifle Association and other pro-gun-rights groups want the Supreme Court to take up the case. The sheriff and the state of California want the court to reject it.

Arizona is involved, too. Attorney General Mark Brnovich joined a brief, filed by Alabama and 24 other states, that takes issue with the 9th Circuit’s interpretation and asks the Supreme Court to reverse it. Gov. Doug Ducey joined a similar brief with eight other governors.

The battle lines are clearly drawn. But is this new court ready to insert itself in the fight?

That’s a question only the justices can answer, and right now, it’s anyone’s guess.