Associated Press

In a victory for gun control advocates, a federal appeals court said Thursday people do not have a right to carry concealed weapons in public under the 2nd Amendment.

An 11-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said law enforcement officials can require applicants for a concealed weapons permit to show they are in immediate danger or have another good reason for a permit beyond self-defense.

By a vote of 7-4, the court upheld a California law that says applicants must supply a "good cause" to obtain a concealed-carry permit. People who are being stalked or threatened, celebrities who fear for their safety, and those who routinely carry large amounts of cash or other valuables are often given permits.

The decision overturned a 2014 ruling by a smaller 9th Circuit panel and came in a lawsuit over the denial of concealed weapons permits by a sheriff in San Diego County.

California generally prohibits people from carrying handguns in public without such a permit. State law requires applicants to show good moral character, have good cause and take a training course.

Because Arizona state law allows the open carrying of concealed firearms, this ruling will not impact those within state lines.

Charles Heller, co-founder and spokesman of Arizona Citizens Defense League, said the federal appeals ruling should have zero impact on Arizonans.

"If the 9th circuit is illiterate as to article 2 section 26 of Arizona Constitution, please have them meet me at the range en banc and I will allow them to experience its meaning first-hand."

The National Rifle Association called the ruling "out of touch."

"This decision will leave good people defenseless, as it completely ignores the fact that law-abiding Californians who reside in counties with hostile sheriffs will now have no means to carry a firearm outside the home for personal protection," said NRA legislative chief Chris W. Cox.

Arizonans should continue to familiarize themselves with gun laws in other states if they want to take their guns with them when they travel, said Russ Richelsoph, a criminal defense attorney at Davis Miles McGuire Gardner.

Richelsoph said the benefit of living in Arizona and owning a permit is that some states will recognize it, such as New Mexico and Texas.

"If the court had ruled that there was a right to carry a firearm in public then California couldn't have a law that was more restrictive," he said. "But in Arizona, gun laws are less restrictive. In Arizona, it's a state law that you can (carry a gun) and the law won't be overturned."

The New York-based gun control organization Everytown welcomed the decision as "a major victory for public safety."

The 9th Circuit decision arose from a lawsuit Edward Peruta filed challenging the San Diego County sheriff's refusal to issue him a permit because he failed to cite a "good cause." The sheriff required applicants to produce supporting documents, such as a restraining order against a possible attacker.

Peruta argued that the requirement violated the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

During oral arguments before the 11-judge 9th Circuit panel, Paul Clement, an attorney for the residents, argued that the self-defense standard should be sufficient and asking for more violates the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.

California Solicitor General Edward DuMont countered that there was a long and rich tradition of restricting concealed weapons in cities and towns. California officials sought to intervene in the case after the San Diego sheriff declined to appeal.

California officials said loosening concealed weapons permitting standards and allowing more people to carry guns threatens law enforcement officials and endangers the public.

Clement countered that there was no evidence that crime went up in counties such as Fresno and Sacramento that had more permissive "good cause" standards.