
    Sigitas RAULINAITIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VENTURA COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 14-56615
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted December 6, 2017 Pasadena, California
    Filed December 22, 2017
    Jonathan Birdt, Attorney, Law Office of Jonathan W. Birdt, Porter Ranch, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant
    Marina Gatti Porche, Office of the County Counsel, Ventura, CA, for Defendant-Appellee
    Before: WARDLAW and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and COLLINS, Chief District Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable Raner C. Collins, Chief United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
    
   ■MEMORANDUM

Sigitas Raulinaitis appeals from the magistrate judge’s summary judgment dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action allegr ing violations of his 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 banc), and we affirm.

1. In Peruta, we 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 on concealed carry permits. 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. See id. For the same reasons, the Ventura County Sheriffs Department policy interpreting the California statutory residency requirement does not violate the Second Amendment. There is no avoiding Peruta’s conclusion that the “Second Amendment does not protect in any degree the right to carry concealed firearms in public,” and that accordingly “any prohibition or restriction a state may choose to impose on concealed carry ... is necessarily allowed by the Amendment,” Id.

2. Nor did Raulinaitis raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the Ventura County Sheriffs Department abused its authority in denying him a concealed carry permit. California gives sheriffs departments “extremely broad discretion” to determine whether to issue concealed carry licenses. Gifford v. City of L.A., 88 Cal. App. 4th 801, 805, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 164 (2001). Here, the evidence showed that the Ventura County Sheriffs Department interpreted the residence requirement in California Penal Code section 26150(a)(3) reasonably, investigated Raulinaitis’s residence thoroughly, and drew reasonable conclusions about where Raulinaitis resided. Because Raulinaitis’s inconsistent declarations at summary judgment did not raise a genuine dispute of material fact about the Sheriffs Department’s authority to conduct an investigation into Raulinaitis’s residence or the manner in which the investigation was conducted, summary judgment was appropriate.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     
      
      . The Ventura County Sheriff’s Department’s motion to take judicial notice of various legislative history documents is DENIED as irrelevant to the resolution of this litigation.
     