I need an explanation for this Law question to help me study.
The Peruta case is an excellent example of the growing friction between state law and Constitutional interpretation. The Supreme Court declined to hear the Peruta case, but it doesn’t explain why. Briefly summarize the Heller case and the McDonald case. Then, articulate what you think the issue is in Peruta, and how you think the Supreme Court should have ruled in that case. Support your argument, and cite your sources.