Federal court says concealed carry is not protected by Second Amendment

California federal court ruled that the Second Amendment does not guarantee citizens the right to carry concealed weapons in public, marking a step forward for gun control advocates.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that law enforcement can legally require concealed carry permit applicants to demonstrate they are in immediate danger - or any other reason beyond self-defence - that justifies the need to carry a firearm in public.

“The protection of the Second Amendment - whatever the scope of that protection may be - simply does not extend to the carrying of concealed firearms in public by members of the general public,” the court ruled in a 7–4 panel vote. They did not offer an opinion about open carry regulations.

Residents of San Diego brought a lawsuit in 2014 after the Sheriff’s Office rejected applicants unable to provide documentation showing good cause for a permit - such as a restraining order, according to the Associated Press.

California had generally prohibited the carrying of concealed weapons without a permit, but cities legislated separately regarding their laws.

An attorney representing the residents of San Diego said the self-defence standard violated the Second Amendment, which many Americans interpret as an individual’s right to bear arms.

The National Rifle Association, the largest gun lobby in the US, expressed displeasure in the 11-judge panel’s Thursday ruling, saying 9th District Court is “out of touch” with “mainstream Americans”.

“This decision will leave good people defenseless, as it completely ignores the fact that law-abiding Californians who reside in counties with hostile sheriffs will now have no means to carry a firearm outside the home for personal protection,” director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action Chris W Cox told The Independent via emailed statement.

“This flawed ruling underscores the importance of the 2016 election,” Mr Cox added. “It is imperative that we elect a President who will appoint Supreme Court justices who respect the Second Amendment and law-abiding citizens’ right to self-defence.”

However, communications director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Ladd Everett, said that only a small minority of Americans carry guns in public.

“The ones that actually carry on a daily basis is probably less than one per cent,” he said. “Carrying a gun in public is not mainstream behaviour.”

However, Mr Everett said whether or not the 9th Circuit’s ruling is a victory for gun control advocates depended on the future of the US Supreme Court.

“At some point this is probably going to bubble up to the Supreme Court,” he said. “A lot will depend on how [the Court] rules on this. … I think in a general sense, it certainly places more pressure on the NRA as they lobby to allow guns in public spaces [without permits].

“This decision is not helpful to that agenda, which is a very radical agenda.”

But the 9th Circuit determined that the regulation of concealed-carry is not necessarily an infringement on the right to bear arms.

“Because the Second Amendment does not protect in any degree the right to carry concealed firearms in public,” the court concluded, “any prohibition or restriction a state may choose to impose on concealed carry - including a right to ‘good cause’, however defined - is necessarily allowed by the Amendment.”