Not immediately, but that sure looks like where we’re heading after the 9th Circuit’s decision in Peruta today.
Because the Second Amendment has always been an individual right to defend oneself, cases that—like these—uphold gun regulations because they do not offend the militia-based nature of the right are inapposite and should not factor into a historical analysis of the right’s scope. See, e.g., Heller, 554 U.S. at 605. And with these cases off the table, the remaining cases speak with one voice: states may not destroy the right to bear arms in public under the guise of regulating it.
And the money quote:
…San Diego County’s “good cause” permitting requirement impermissibly infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense.
I’m still reading through the decision, but basically, the lower court’s granting of San Diego’s motion for summary judgment was reversed because, among other things, self-defense must be considered “good cause” to issue the license to carry. All the caveats apply: it’s a 3-judge panel, not the full 9th; San Diego can still appeal.
Nonetheless, this bodes VERY well for the Calguns Foundation’s/Alan Gura’s Richards case, which was argued before the same panel on the same day, and may get us more of a slam-dunk ruling. We’ll see.