Who should decide whether Californians may legally carry a concealed weapon?

Here’s where it stands right now: The state Legislature handed off the decision to local law enforcement officials, federal judges are divided, the California attorney general wants to weigh in, and the U.S. Supreme Court may yet override all of them.

California lawmakers have made it generally illegal to carry a gun, open or concealed, loaded or unloaded, in public places. However, state law allows individuals to obtain a license to carry a concealed weapon if they take a firearms training course, demonstrate “good moral character” and show “good cause” for the permit to be issued.

The definition of “good cause” was left to local law enforcement officials.

In San Diego County, Sheriff Bill Gore’s policy required evidence of some special risk or danger “to distinguish the applicant from the mainstream.” He required “supporting documentation” like restraining orders or letters from law enforcement agencies. Sheriff Gore said concern for “one’s personal safety alone is not considered good cause” for a license to carry a concealed weapon.

For this policy, Gore was sued by videographer Edward Peruta, four other San Diego County residents, and the California Rifle and Pistol Association Foundation.

Gore won, momentarily.

Then U.S. District Judge Irma E. Gonzalez’s decision in the case of Peruta v. County of San Diego was reversed by a 2-1 ruling of a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel. The majority said “San Diego County’s ‘good cause’ permitting requirement impermissibly infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense.”

The dissenting judge, Sidney Thomas, now the chief judge of the Ninth Circuit, said the majority’s opinion went too far with its sweeping ruling establishing a Second Amendment right to carry a weapon outside the home.

When Sheriff Gore refused to appeal the decision, California Attorney General Kamala Harris and gun-control advocacy groups tried unsuccessfully to join the case. There is still a possibility that the Ninth Circuit will hear the case again, this time by a panel of eleven judges. As chief judge, Sidney Thomas would be one of them.

If the Peruta decision stands, the Ninth Circuit will be in conflict with other circuits that have upheld policies similar to Gore’s. That would make it likely that the U.S. Supreme Court will accept the Peruta case or one like it.

The high court ruled in 2008 that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, and in 2010 that the right applies against state governments as well as the federal government. But the justices have not yet addressed the question of the right to carry a firearm outside the home.

The pressure is on. Twenty-two groups have filed friend-of-the-court briefs in the latest round of the Peruta case, and the Ninth Circuit set up a website for the press and public “due to the level of interest in this case.”

If the Supreme Court eventually rules that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a weapon for lawful self-defense outside the home, every state or local policy that regulates the exercise of that right will face tough legal scrutiny. It’s the job of the federal courts to enforce constitutional rights.

That’s the difference between rights and policies: Policies can be changed by elected officials under public pressure, but rights are a protection from elected officials and from public pressure.

Expect a firefight in the Senate confirmation hearings for the next Supreme Court nominee, and for all federal judges. That’s where the future of Second Amendment rights will be decided.

Susan Shelley is a San Fernando Valley author, a former television associate producer and twice a Republican candidate for the California Assembly.