Jim, this is important, because Judge Thomas, who wrote the dissent in
Peruta, reluctantly agrees that the case was decided correctly:
Quote:
I agree that, if unaltered by an en banc panel or by the Supreme Court, Peruta v. County of San Diego, No. 10-56971,— F.3d—, 2014 WL 555862 (Feb. 13, 2014), requires reversing and remanding in this case. Peruta and this case were argued and submitted on the same date. Absent Peruta, I would hold that the Yolo County’s “good cause” requirement is constitutional because carrying concealed weapons in public is not conduct protected by the Second Amendment. See United States v. Chester, 628 F.3d 673, 680 (4th Cir. 2010). I also would have held, in the alternative, that even if the good cause requirement implicated the Second Amendment, the policy survives intermediate scrutiny.
Therefore, I concur in the judgment.
|
The opinion is also unpublished and cannot therefore be cited within the 9th Circuit.