The last standard set forth is one in which the court asserts the right to concealed carry does not extend beyond the home and therefore good cause statutes do not implicate Second Amendment protections. The ninth circuit and third circuit courts follow this standard. In Peruta, the court held that an individual of the general public does not have the right to carry a concealed weapon outside the home under the 2nd amendment. Id. at 924. Since the Second Amendment offers no protections for the concealed carrying of weapons, states can place any restrictions without violating the amendment. This includes the highly debated “good cause” provision enacted by California. Id. at 939. In Drake, the court assumed that the Second Amendment did not give individuals …show more content…
Id. at 434. Therefore, it regulates conduct that is not within the scope of the Second Amendment. Id. at 434. Furthermore, it held that even if it was not presumptively constitutional, it would withstand intermediate scrutiny. Id. at 435. The court felt that the justifiable need clause …show more content…
Hamilton’s case, we notice that if the court deems the “good cause” law a presumptively constitutional statute she will have no Second Amendment protection afforded to her. Furthermore, if this case is followed as precedent the court may deem that the “good cause” requirement may pass the appropriate level of scrutiny. The court may search for a clear and substantial government interest that justifies the good cause requirement as the court did in Drake. In addition, the court may rule that the Second Amendment does not apply to concealed carry outside of the home, thereby dissolving any argument that Ms. Hamilton could produce. If such is done, she may not have a successful cause of action under the precedent set in this