The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday denied review of a federal appellate court’s ruling last year backing Yolo County’s longtime policy regarding concealed weapon permits.
Concluding nearly seven years of litigation, the decision leaves in place Yolo County’s protocol that calls for applicants to demonstrate “good cause” for carrying a concealed weapon, arguing that the Second Amendment does not guarantee that right.
Sheriff Ed Prieto claimed vindication on June 9, 2016, when a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals “en banc” panel ruled 7-4 that counties have the right to develop their own policies and procedures when it comes to issuing the permits to the general public, and that Yolo’s good-cause requirements don’t constitute a violation of the Second Amendment.
The appellate court ruling came nearly a year after the 11-member panel heard oral arguments in a rehearing of the case of Richards v. Prieto, County of Yolo, filed after plaintiff Adam Richards was denied a concealed weapon permit in 2009.
That decision also applied to the case of Peruta v. San Diego, which involved similar issues.
“Although the other sheriffs involved in the litigation decided to revise their policies rather than defend them in court, Sheriff Prieto is pleased the longstanding concealed weapons permit policy of the Yolo County Sheriff’s Office has been upheld,” sheriff’s office spokesman Sgt. Matt Davis said in a news release.
The Second Amendment Foundation, which has served as a plaintiff in the lawsuit, did not immediately respond to The Enterprise’s request for comment about the Supreme Court decision.
As currently written, Yolo County’s concealed-weapon permit policy largely mirrors those of other counties, requiring applicants to be local residents at least 21 years of age, of good moral character and free of criminal convictions, among other criteria.
But it also calls for applicants to demonstrate “good cause” for seeking the license, such as being the victim of a violent crime, or a business owner who carries large amounts of cash or works in remote areas and is “likely to encounter dangerous people and situations.”
Self-protection and protection of family, absent a threat of violence, is considered an invalid reason for requesting a permit.
“Localizing the decision allows closer scrutiny of the interests and needs of each community,” says the appellate court’s history-laden majority opinion, which explores right-to-bear-arms laws dating back to late 13th-century England.
“California entrusts the decision-making responsibility to local law enforcement officials because they are best positioned to evaluate the potential dangers that increasing or decreasing concealed carry would have in their communities,” the ruling says.
In their dissent, four members of the en banc panel contend the majority opinion “eviscerates” the Second Amendment right to bear arms — a right that “extends beyond one’s front door. Like the rest of the Bill of Rights, this right is indisputably constitutional in stature and part of this country’s bedrock.”
The majority decision reverses a March 2014 ruling by a three-member appellate court panel that declared that Yolo County’s concealed-weapon permit policy “impermissibly infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense,” issuing a similar ruling in the San Diego case.
Before that, U.S. District Courts in both jurisdictions upheld the policies.
Elected sheriff in 1998, Prieto said Yolo County’s policy was in place before he took office. He never considered revising it, although he acknowledges it’s more restrictive than other such policies in California.
Yolo County currently has roughly 220 concealed weapon permits issued.
— Reach Lauren Keene at lkeene@davisenterprise.net or 530-747-8048. Follow her on Twitter at @laurenkeene