What's on Second? The Ninth Circus -- Gun rights advance in California.

From James Taranto of Opinion Journal:

The lead plaintiff in the case, Edwin Peruta, unsuccessfully sought a permit to carry a concealed firearm. In California, obtaining such a permit is, as Judge O'Scannlain notes in his opinion, "the only way that the typical responsible, law-abiding citizen can carry a weapon in public for the lawful purpose of self-defense." Applicants for concealed-carry permits "must demonstrate 'good moral character,' complete a specified training course, and establish 'good cause.' " The interpretation of those provisions is left to local authorities.

San Diego County adopted a policy that interpreted the "good cause" requirement as follows: "a set of circumstances that distinguish the applicant from the mainstream and causes him or her to be placed in harm's way." "Important here," according to the judge (quoting the policy), is that "concern for 'one's personal safety alone is not considered good cause.

Before concluding that the "good cause" policy impermissibly burdened Peruta's Second Amendment right, the judges undertook an extensive historical inquiry to determine that the Second Amendment does indeed protect the right to carry guns outside the home. Other appeals courts, notably the Seventh Circuit, have reached the same conclusion, but the Supreme Court hasn't yet decided the question. Its two recent Second Amendment landmarks, District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010), both dealt with the right to keep arms in one's own home. It's likely that a case involving the right to bear arms will eventually reach the high court.

Peruta would make a good test case, because it would allow the justices to establish that right without getting into the weeds of what restrictions on it would be reasonable. The plaintiffs do not challenge the requirements of a training course and "good moral character." The former is unobjectionable and is required by many states with permissive "shall issue" carry policies. The latter could be applied in questionable ways--would California deny a carry permit to Bill Clinton?--but it doesn't seem unreasonable on its face.

By contrast, the requirement for "good cause," at least as interpreted by San Diego County, is flagrantly unreasonable. By stipulating that an applicant must "distinguish" himself "from the mainstream"--that ordinary people need not apply--the county transmutes a right into a privilege or dispensation.

The argument on the other side of the question is in fact that Second Amendment rights are not rights at all, or are "collective" rights that belong to state militias, not individuals. (That claim rests uneasily with left-wing insistence that all constitutional rights, particularly freedom of speech, belong only to individuals--though that insistence is an incoherent position and thus also rests uneasily alone.)

The decision was shocking for most Californians, who just assume they will lose in court because of the 9th Circus, lead by buffoons like Stephen Reinhardt.