|
Thomas agued in dissent in Peruta that the majority erred in looking beyond the specific question presented, which was a challenge to the good cause requirement of the concealed carry law. Looking solely at concealed carry, Thomas concluded, based on a long history of cases upholding concealed carry bans, that concealed carry was not within the scope of the Second Amendment--as had the eastern circuits in Kachalsky, Drake and Woolard.
The majority did look at that law more globally, found a right to carry outside the home, and concluded that carry for self defense had to be allowed in one form or another; California having effectively banned urban open carry, concealed carry had to be allowed, and a discretionary system of issuance that had the effect of banning most people from exercising the right was unconstitutional.
In Richards, and contrary to what Al says, Thomas did not concede that the majority was correct, only that under principles of stare decisis the outcome was determined by Peruta. In his concurrence, though, he made the point that he believed that Peruta was wrongly decided, and essentially invited en banc review.
|