Can I get a TL;DW?
BREAKING: Webber v. Armslist (E.D. WI): Judge throws out @bradybuzz lawsuit to hold Armslist liable for a shooting, says it's part of "a nationwide effort to use litigation as a way of circumventing the legislative process in the area of gun control."
twitter.com/2Aupdates/status/1473096778681569286
BREAKING: Duncan v. Bonta (9th Circuit): Ninth Circuit lets Californians retain their pre-ban and "Freedom Week" magazines for now, stays decision upholding the state's ban for 150 days and says it will be extended if a cert petition is filed with the Supreme Court.
So a win in the ninth circuit that won't last long because it will be en banc'd.
One of the justices clowns the rest of the Ninth Circuit court's 2nd amendment Jurisprudence by writing the en banc overturning for them, with sarcastic asides. Starts on page 48.
I'm honestly amazed they allowed that to get published, because it's such a huge burn on the 9th Circuit.One of the justices clowns the rest of the Ninth Circuit court's 2nd amendment Jurisprudence by writing the en banc overturning for them, with sarcastic asides. Starts on page 48.
This is the ninth, which routinely does it when gun control cases don't go the government's way. The judge literally complains about this in his first paragraph:En banc review is almost always requested, but quite rarely granted (it takes a majority of the active sitting judges on a circuit to agree to an en banc review).
I agree wholeheartedly with the majority opinion, which is not terribly surprising since I wrote it. But I write separately to make two additional points. The first is simply to predict what happens next. I’m not a prophet, but since this panel just enforced the Second Amendment, and this is the Ninth Circuit, this ruling will almost certainly face an en banc challenge. This prediction follows from the fact that this is always what happens when a three-judge panel upholds the Second Amendment in this circuit. See, e.g., [six cases listed]. Our circuit has ruled on dozens of Second Amendment cases, and without fail has ultimately blessed every gun regulation challenged, so we shouldn’t expect anything less here. See Duncan, 19 F.4th at 1165 (VanDyke, J., dissenting).
2 We refer to strict scrutiny as a theoretical matter—a thought-experiment, really. Our court has never ultimately applied strict scrutiny to any real-life gun regulation.
....
5 “Severe” is a very strong word, and a real
workhorse when italicized.
.....
6 Another one of our favorite tricks. Once you
frame Heller as speaking only to complete and total bans, it’s easy to side-step its holding. All a judge has to do is pretend the Supreme Court would have allowed anything short of DC’s drastic prohibition in Heller, instead of viewing Heller as easily correcting an especially egregious constitutional violation.
....
10 We’ve really gotten a lot of mileage out of this concept. One might think that because the “first
prong” (government’s important interest) will always be met in Second Amendment cases (because guns are inherently dangerous), that the “reasonable fit” part of the test would take on special significance. But thankfully the opposite is true. We’ve been able to water down the “fit” part of the test for Second Amendment cases to such an extent that many of our judges have been forced distance our Second Amendment case law from the First Amendment case law from which it was supposedly borrowed. See Duncan, 19 F.4th at 1116 (Graber, J., concurring) (“To be sure, the First Amendment and the Second Amendment differ in many important respects (including text and purpose), and the analogy is imperfect at best.”).
.....
11 I know this sounds a lot like rational basis
review. After all, if a government interest would be
“achieved [more] effectively absent the [challenged] regulation,” it’s hard to see how that regulation would survive even rational basis scrutiny. But trust us, this is heightened scrutiny. So very heightened.
Yeah, that's why I linked it. The sheer sarcasm in his opinion is just breathtaking. Highly recommend a full read. The opinion starts on page 46, and his mock 'opinion' begins on 48.Wow.
Again, it doesn’t matter much what we say here.
Once we’re allowed to effectively balance competing
interests under our Second Amendment intermediate
scrutiny, it’s so easy justifying a regulation that we
could easily just delegate this part of the opinion to our
interns
Fuck the NFA, and a pox on the ATF.that violated the NFA