Ninth Circuit 2A Opinion — Worth a Read

[Inside Out]

The Ninth Circuit today issued an opinion on the 48-day closure of gun shops and ranges under a California county’s COVID mandates.

The unanimous three-judge panel reached the right decision — the forced closures were bogus and infringed 2A — which is great.

But the really interesting part is the concurrence by Van Dyke (a Trump appointee and staunch 2A advocate). He predicts that the Ninth will take the case on an en banc review and then reverse the three-judge panel, because that’s what the Ninth always does on gun cases. (They did this recently in the “high capacity” magazine challenge.)

Then he proceeds to sketch out a draft en banc opinion for how that would happen, annotating his thought process in footnotes to show how malleable the legal analysis can really be in 2A cases.

It’s interesting, illuminating, and scary. Read it here; starts on page 46 of the PDF:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/01/20/20-56220.pdf

 

[240Geezer]

Thanks but I don't care to read it.
Shakespeare was right.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

I don't even know why we have 3 judge panels on the circuits when it goes en banc and the 3 judge panel is reversed. The logic could be impeccable and it still doesn't matter. Funny how you see this mainly in the far left circuits.

 

[556USER]

I don't even know why we have 3 judge panels on the circuits when it goes en banc and the 3 judge panel is reversed. The logic could be impeccable and it still doesn't matter. Funny how you see this mainly in the far left circuits.

Uh, we have that so lawyers can bill for more hours when they take their case before multiple renditions of the same court LOL.

 

[LittleCalm]

Pretty ballsy of him to say what he said about the en banc record in the 9th. Good for him for calling them out.

 

[TomPaine]

Thanks for posting. Great read.

 

[Dennis in MA]

Legal standards pertaining to all 50 states is a fascinating process.

Let's say the state lets this stand. It's only valid in CA (and maybe some other backwards left-coast states). That's it.

But the state of CA can't let it go. So they appeal to the full bench. And they win.

Then we appeal to the USSC. Assuming they hear it AND rule in our favor, that is law of the land in 50 states.

Sometimes you actually want to lose in a lower court in order for a bigger win further down the line. And perhaps some of these judges should realize that and take that into account before en-banc-ing a good case, reversing, and making it national policy.

Sadly, it doesn't happen enough. It seems we've had 2 decades of empty victories for 2A.

 

[Hoover]

I don't even know why we have 3 judge panels on the circuits when it goes en banc and the 3 judge panel is reversed. The logic could be impeccable and it still doesn't matter. Funny how you see this mainly in the far left circuits.

Few cases go en banc, on the 9th, the chief judge Thomas (a real POS) and a few other really activist liberals, vote to take all gun cases to en banc if they lose in the 3 judge panel. En banc in all circuits involve all the judges in the circuit hearing the case, in the 9th it’s only 11 of the 29 because it’s such a big court.

Until SCOTUS slaps down the 9th on these gun cases, they’ll keep doing this shit.

Trump improved the 9th A LOT. It’s a 16-13 D-R split, pre trump it was 21-8. Clinton put a ton of judges on that court, there are still 5 after 4 recent retirements.

 

[Hoover]

The Ninth Circuit today issued an opinion on the 48-day closure of gun shops and ranges under a California county’s COVID mandates.

The unanimous three-judge panel reached the right decision — the forced closures were bogus and infringed 2A — which is great.

But the really interesting part is the concurrence by Van Dyke (a Trump appointee and staunch 2A advocate). He predicts that the Ninth will take the case on an en banc review and then reverse the three-judge panel, because that’s what the Ninth always does on gun cases. (They did this recently in the “high capacity” magazine challenge.)

Then he proceeds to sketch out a draft en banc opinion for how that would happen, annotating his thought process in footnotes to show how malleable the legal analysis can really be in 2A cases.

It’s interesting, illuminating, and scary. Read it here; starts on page 46 of the PDF:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/01/20/20-56220.pdf

He’s very blunt and from articles I’ve read, the libs on that court hate him.