Case: 10-56971
02/27/2014
104
ID: 8996736
DktEntry: 123-1
Page: 154 of 187
PERUTA V. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
of crime, rather than contribute to public or personal defence." 1 The American Students' Blackstone 84 n.ll (George Chase ed. 1884) (emphasis in original). Although all the nineteenth-century cases cited by the majority cautioned against restrictions on the open carrying of weapons, none of them-except the discredited, outlier Bliss-suggests that restrictions on carrying concealed weapons implicate the Second Amendment. See Chandler, 1 La. Ann. at 490; Nunn, 1 Ga. at 25 1; Reid, 1 Ala. at 616-17. And nothing in these cases or Chase's Blackstone even hints that a restriction on carrying concealed weapons would become invalid if restrictions were placed on open carry. Rather, they suggest that restrictions on concealed carry are always valid, while there are limits to restrictions on open carry. The majority concedes that it is in conflict with the Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits in Drake, Woollard, and Kachalsky. However, it insists that it is in accord with the Seventh Circuit's decision in Moore. But Moore did not involve a challenge to the implementation of a "good cause" requirement to carry a concealed weapon in public. Rather, it was a direct challenge to an Illinois law banning almost all forms of carrying a loaded firearm outside the home and did not involve "narrower, better tailored restrictions" such as the one at issue here. See Moore v. Madigan , 708 F.3d 90 1, 904 (7th Cir. 2013) (Hamilton, J. , dissenting from denial of rehearing en bane). 2 The majority essentially concedes that the Plaintiffs' challenge to San Diego County's "good cause" policy fails
ADD104