Now to be honest the NRA media is trying to spin this a "a crushing blow to gun control" and a "big win" to the NRA.
In a nut shell, the 9th Circuit Court in CA over turned a small portion of CA's gun licensing laws as currently applied. (http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/... )
More after the squiggle.
The law deals with carrying a gun (or boom stick) loaded, out side of the home concealed. The state does not allow "open carry", and concealed carry requires a permit. (CA use to allow "unloaded open carry" but that was found to be basically useless for self defense, as the idea that you would be able to load your gun while under felony assault is only going to happen in the movies. So the law was changed to bar all open carry.
The bar on open carry came about because the law provided for concealed carry.
In Peller v San Diego, the case being haled, the plaintiff did not challenge the whole law, just one small aspect of the law.
Not challneged is the requirements for safety training, a background check, storage, restrictions on where you can carry, mandatory registration, safety restrictions, and that you be a law abiding citizen - a person of "good moral character". These are all issues that pass the Heller test - the reasonable restrictions government can impose to support the public good.
What was challenged was the requirement that a permit applicant show "good cause" to need a gun for defense in public. This is not an issue in most of the state as "good cause" is seen by many to simply be that you fear being robbed. But in San Diego the good cause basically was interpreted to mean the applicant is faced with current specific threats. (so you testify against the mob and have to wait three months for witness protection program to kick in, or your abusive ex broke out of jail saying they were going to hunt you down and kill you)
This standard was so restrictive that very few applications were ever approved. Many of those that were, often went to the wealthy and well connected. (who have lawyers to jump through the hoops for them)
The Court felt that the near total restrictions on the permit process violated Heller. And it does. You have a right, as Heller teaches, to have a gun for personal defense and have a right to reasonable expectation that you can get permission to have it through the permit process.
No, it does not say that directly, it says restrictions can't be total, have to be reasonable and not a total ban.
The Peruta decision does not strike down California’s statutes about licensing for the carrying of firearms. The decision simply says that the “good cause” requirement may not be interpreted in a manner that disable typical law-abiding citizens from being able to obtain carry permits. The state statute is fine; the way the statute was interpreted by many California jurisdictions is not.
The simple fix is for California to tell local governments what "good cause" means.
So don't buy the pro-NRA media hype that gun control is about to be over turned in California. It is not. But I guess since they are losing just about every battle they have to praise each minor technical win.