Tag: Ninth Circuit

All a Misunderstanding?

Lower courts have misunderstood footnote 9 and expanded the term “shall-issue” to encompass all objective regulations on the purchase, possession, carry, or transfer of firearms… [More]

Sorry, professor.

I realize you’re smarter than me and better educated and everything, but I don’t think for one second activist Democrat judges misunderstand anything. I think they know exactly what they’re doing and are arrogant in the knowledge that there will be no personal repercussions to their judicial tyranny.

Or do I just need to turn up my euphemism meter?

[Via Michael G]

Just Like the Founders Intended?

So to begin with the law that’s being challenged here was a Hawaii law that applies to individuals who have already been approved … to have concealed carry permits. They’ve already been approved. They’ve gone through the background checks. They’ve gone through the fingerprinting … They’ve gone through the whole process and been approved to conceal carry a handgun in the state of Hawaii. And after they approved to carry a gun in Hawaii, there’s two additional two additional steps that must be taken before they can buy a handgun. The first step is that they have to get a permit to purchase form. And once they get that permit to purchase form in their hands, they only have 30 days to go out and buy the handgun with that permit to purchase form. And if that permit to purchase form goes more than 30 days from the date it’s issued by Hawaii, then that permit to purchase form is void. It is expired and no good, which means you could have to go back and go get another purchase to permit form to acquire a handgun under these various restrictions. The other critical thing that they challenge, the other part of Hawaii law they challenge is once you acquire the handgun with this permit to purchase, now you go out, you buy the gun, you get the gun, you take it in your possession, you then under Hawaii law have five days, that’s right, just five days to take your newly acquired handgun and walk it down to the police department and have them inspect it. [Watch]

It’s not that the majority en banc traitors on the Ninth Circuit who ruled this Constitutional don’t know they’re being evil. They’re just confident that imposing their will against the freedoms of their countrymen will never blow back on them personally.

[Via Jess]

Left Standing

Ninth Circuit Rejects California, Giffords Bid to Expand ATF ‘Ghost Gun’ Rule… Article III standing, Judge Consuelo Callahan explained, is a “bedrock constitutional requirement.” Federal courts decide actual cases involving concrete injuries. They are not supposed to serve as another legislative chamber for states and political organizations unhappy with federal policy. [More]

Yeah, but “without prejudice” means they’ll be back with a new angle, and a panel does not the whole Ninth Circuit make.

More out ‘standing” news…

FA sans FO

VanDyke argued the 9th Circuit has spent years resisting Supreme Court precedent recognizing robust Second Amendment protections, asserting that decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen have “changed nothing” in the circuit’s approach to gun-rights cases. He contended the court continues to find new doctrinal paths to uphold firearm restrictions. [More]

Since SCOTUS summary reversals of defiant inferior court decisions have not been forthcoming, it sounds like the person who needs to be publicly slapped is John Roberts.

Full Court Press

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has granted rehearing en banc in Rhode v. Bonta—a case backed by the National Rifle Association and California Rifle and Pistol Association. [More]

They figure a summoning of all the Nazgûl will overturn the panel, bolster the infringement, and give Democrats a few more years to drag things on until Republicans blow things and SCOTUS can be reformed.

Change my mind.

[Via Jess]

In the Spirit of Aloha

SAF, PARTNERS FILE AMICUS BRIEF CHALLENGING HAWAII’S FIREARMS PURCHASE LAWS

When the press release gets posted you’ll be able to find it here.

To cut to the chase, go to the brief.

Tangentially Related

SAF sister organization CCRKBA has an update on wins and losses in New Jersey.

A Win– For Now

A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has unanimously upheld an earlier preliminary injunction against a section of the California Business & Professional Code which had been used by the state to stifle gun-related advertising in Junior Sports magazine, in a case brought by the Second Amendment Foundation and others. [More]

Now we see if the en banc court reverses that.

Welcome to California, where advertising a “swell vacation gift from Dad” is verboten and LGBTQ affirming picture books for kids are mandatory.

Calculated Failure

How the 9th Circuit Misfires on the 2nd Amendment [More]

That’s presuming they’re just wrong instead of evil.

Grover promotes that kind of $#!+ to wheedle donations from thick-headed “moderates.”

And no, I don’t know how you can read the whole article without signing up. I figure if it’s anything like the title, I’ve seen enough.

[Via Dan Gifford]

Float Like a Butterfly, Sting Like a Bee

Federal Appeals Judge ATTACKS Ninth Circuit for Gaming 2nd Amendment Cases [Watch]

We talked about this butterfly knife/2A case here.

Judge Lawrence VanDyke sounds like a perfect SCOTUS replacement.

Sotomayor ain’t exactly looking peppy these days…

[Via Jess]

Just Like the Framers Intended

For places that are newer, Defendants must point to regulations that are analogous to the regulations cited by the Supreme Court, taking into account that it is illogical to expect a government to regulate a place before it existed in its modern form. [More]

So, any building, parcel, street, city, territory, or state developed after ratification…?

What other articles in the Bill of Rights does this apply to?