Thursday’s ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld a law requiring gun applicants to show good reason beyond mere safety. It was consistent with rulings since 2012 in three other circuits upholding similar restrictions in New York, Maryland and New Jersey. The Supreme Court did not take up the issue after those rulings. Alan Gura, an Alexandria, Virginia-based lawyer, has represented plaintiffs in each case. He did not immediately return a request for comment Friday.
UCLA Law School professor Eugene Volokh said he thinks there is less chance that the high court will hear the California case than the three that came before it because there are currently only eight justices.
The Supreme Court has never addressed directly whether an individual has the right to bear arms outside the home for the purpose of self-defense.
“It’s an important question, the most important of the remaining questions on gun rights” that the Supreme Court has not addressed, Volokh said.He predicted that the Supreme Court might eventually take up the subject if an appeals court in Washington, D.C., strikes down the city’s strict gun law. Two lower court judges have issued conflicting opinions about the constitutionality of the district’s law requiring that a firearm applicant demonstrate a “good reason to fear injury to his or her person or property” before being licensed to carry a pistol. James B. Jacobs, a professor of constitutional law at New York University School of Law, noted the Supreme Court had decided two previous gun cases by a 5-4 vote. He said the court might be reluctant to tackle the issue until there are nine justices.
David Kopel, an adjunct professor of constitutional law at Denver University, agreed it was unlikely that the Supreme Court would address the issue now. “It’s less an issue of laws than their application,” Kopel said, noting that there were substantial differences in how the laws are carried out within the states where licensing laws are strict.