What is the scope of the opinion in the 9th Circuit regarding the right to carry concealed handguns?

That the opinion primarily addressed state regulation of handguns could hardly be clearer. Although the majority stated that the plaintiffs focus[ ] [their] challenge on the licensing scheme for concealed carry, it construed the plaintiffs' complaint as contending that the San Diego County policy in light of the California licensing scheme as a whole violates the Second Amendment and targets the constitutionality of the entire scheme. Peruta v. County of San Diego, 742 F.3d 1144, 1171 (9th Cir.2014) (emphasis in original). It reasoned that in order to resolve the plaintiffs' claims, we must assess whether the California scheme deprives any individual of his constitutional rights. Id. at 1169 (emphasis added). Thus, in the majority's view, the issue in the case is not the concealed carrying of a weapon but rather whether [the California scheme] allows the typical responsible, law-abiding citizen to bear arms in public for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Id. The majority stated that if self-defense outside the home is part of the core right to bear

[771 F.3d 577]