Case: 10-56971
02/27/2014
ID: 8996736
DktEntry: 123-1
PERUTA V. COUNTY OF S AN DIEGO
Page: 147 of 187
97
regulation and the asserted objective." Id. at 1139 (citing Chester, 628 F.3d at 683). 7 The County claims that its application of the good cause requirement protects the public peace and protects "the safety of the public from unknown persons carrying concealed, loaded firearms." As the Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear, public safety and preventing crime are important, indeed compelling, government interests. See, e.g., Schenk v. Pro-Choice Network of W N.Y., 519 U.S. 357, 376 (1997) (public safety is a significant government interest); United Statesv. Salerno,48I U.S. 739, 750(1987)(preventingcrime is a compelling government interest). The County argues that the good cause requirement helps protect public safety because it reduces the number of concealed firearms circulating in public. According to the County, reducing the number of guns carried in public ensures public safety by, among other things: •
Limiting the lethality of violent crimes. According to an expert declaration filed in support of the County's motion for summary judgment, even though the general availability of guns may or may not influence the absolute number of violent crimes, when guns are
7
We are not alone in this application. Other circuits that have considered a restriction similar to the good cause requirement have applied intermediate scrutiny. See Woollard v. Gallagher, 712 F.3d 865, 869, 876 (4th Cir. 20 13) (applying intermediate scrutiny to a Maryland statute requiring applicants to demonstrate a "good and substantial reason to wear, carry, or transport a handgun" in order to obtain a license to do so); Kachalsky, 70 I F.3d at 96 (applying intermediate scrutiny to a New York statute requiring applicants to demonstrate " proper cause" in order to obtain a license to carry concealed handguns).
ADD97