Peruta v. County of San Diego
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130878
| S.D. Cal. | 2010Background
- Plaintiffs Edward Peruta, Michelle Laxson, James Dodd, Dr. Leslie Buncher, Mark Cleary, and CRPAF reside in San Diego County and applied for CCW licenses or renewals, all denied for lack of 'good cause'.
- Defendant Sheriff Gore administers Penal Code §§12050-12054 for CCW licensing in San Diego County; 'good cause' is a discretionary, documentation-requiring standard.
- Penal Code §12031 provides open carry exceptions, including for immediate self-defense, home defense, and other specific circumstances; Plaintiffs challenge only the §12050 framework as applied.
- Plaintiffs contend Heller and McDonald extend the Second Amendment right to carry a loaded handgun in public; Defendant argues the right is not so extended and supports the current scheme as presumptively lawful.
- Procedural posture: Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on bears-arm rights and equal protection claims; Defendant moved for full summary judgment; court granted summary judgment for Defendant on all claims and denied Plaintiffs'.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of Second Amendment right to carry in public | Heller/McDonald extend right to loaded public carry via §12050 licenses. | Right extends to home; public carry not guaranteed; policy may be presumptively lawful. | Court declines extension; finds policy valid under intermediate scrutiny. |
| Equal protection: good cause and HDSA treatment | Policy discriminates against similarly situated individuals and favors HDSA members. | No selective treatment; records do not show impermissible discrimination. | Policy and HDSA treatment do not violate equal protection. |
| Residency requirement and right to travel | Residency distinction burdens travel/privileges. | Residency reasonably related to substantial governmental interest; distinguish residents from non-residents. | Residency requirement upheld; right to travel claim dismissed. |
| Due process | Denials without due process under §12050 | No property/liberty interest in license; procedures adequate. | Due process claim dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (U.S. 2008) (recognizes individual right to bear arms for self-defense; discusses home and general restrictions)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (U.S. 2010) (incorporates Second Amendment right against the states)
- Heller II, 698 F. Supp. 2d 179 (D.D.C. 2010) (post-Heller treatment of scope and limits of Second Amendment rights)
- United States v. Marzzarella, 614 F.3d 85 (3rd Cir. 2010) (intermediate scrutiny framework for Second Amendment restrictions)
- United States v. Skoien, 614 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 2010) (recognizes intermediate scrutiny in Second Amendment cases)
- State v. Yarbrough, 169 Cal. App. 4th 303 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (public safety concerns with carrying concealed weapons in public)
- Bach v. Pataki, 408 F.3d 75 (2d Cir. 2005) (residency-based licenses and substantial governmental interest)