
    Rima RAULINAITIS, Sigitas Raulinaitis, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 12-56508
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted October 25, 2016 
    
    Filed November 07, 2016
    Jonathan Birdt, Law Office of Jonathan W. Birdt, Porter Ranch, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    Edward Hsu, Jennifer Ann Delgado Lehman, Lana Choi, Alexandra Zuider-weg, Los Angeles County Counsel, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: LEAVY, SILVERMAN, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rima and Sigitas Raulinaitis appeal from the district court’s summary judgment in their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of their Second Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Peruta v. County of San Diego, 824 F.3d 919, 925 (9th Cir. 2016) (en bane), and we affirm.

In Peruta v. San Diego, this court, sitting en banc, held that a member of the general public does not have a right under the Second Amendment to carry a concealed firearm in public, and that a state may impose restrictions, including a showing of good cause, on concealed carry. Id. at 939. The San Diego and Yolo County Sheriffs Department policies interpreting the California statutory good cause requirement at issue in Peruta therefore survived a Second Amendment challenge. Id. For the same reasons, the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department’s policies interpreting the California statutory good cause requirement do not violate the Second Amendment.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     