Search results

In addition to being good news on its own merits, I think this ruling quite firmly refutes the idea that the 9th Circuit is blindly anti-gun. On the other hand, keep in mind that despite the language of the ruling being quite broad, this is still only a preliminary injunction, and the court...

I take a far less absolutist view on gun rights than most of y'all here, but I am 100% for applying absolute federal preemption to firearms rights and saying that *only* Congress has *any* authority to regulate firearms and ammunition in any way whatsoever.

Which is why I’m saying it should fall under the due process rules established for TROs and not a special automatic rule.

Different states implemented such restrictions with substantial differences. In my opinion, firearms restrictions fall within the lawful authority of the courts in imposing a TRO for cause, and due process is amply satisfied by the procedures of the courts in this. However, they shouldn’t...

That's exactly why none of the two-way geography splits manage to avoid having a 21+ judge district. The territory of the 9th is truly massive and bizarre, covering nine states with twice the population of the next biggest district. Even with 29 judges, the 9th is badly understaffed and...

The Supreme Court isn't a factor -- we already have thirteen federal circuits and only nine justices, so splitting the Ninth into additional circuits does not automatically create new Supreme Court positions, nor does it even significantly strengthen the argument for new Supreme Court...

It's fairly obscure knowledge; I only know the details because of a very memorable school field trip to the Ninth Circuit where the process was explained to us by one of the judges.

In most Circuits, the en banc panel consists of all the active sitting judges. This is not practical because the Ninth is vastly larger than any other circuit -- it was assigned a huge territory because the West was sparsely settled back in the day, and for political reasons (from both sides)...

En banc appeal is entirely at the discretion of the majority of the Court, so there's really no sense whining about either getting or not getting an en banc. Unofficially, the more controversial and important a case is, the more likely it is to be en banc.

Again, I'd strongly argue that administrative agencies are necessary in handling laws that inherently have complex day-to-day operations. You could never run something like aviation safety regulations without an agency.

In my opinion, the closed registry was a dirty pool subversion of a relatively reasonable compromise, and illustrates a serious downside of allowing administrative agencies to have broad discretion in interpreting black letter law. On the other hand, I don't agree with the idea of trying to...

Considering that if taken straight up, Miller holds that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to all firearm types, but specifically covers military weapons, I would absolutely accept that as a compromise. The government may regulate non-military hunting weapons as restrictively as it pleases...

Frankly, the militia argument has always been odd to me because if the Second Amendment is intended to cover a citizen militia, then it by definition covers full fledged military weapons.

Equal protection of the law does not fully apply to foreigners versus citizens; in fact, under the standing interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, it does not even fully apply to "citizens of a U.S. territory" versus "citizens of a U.S. state". It also doesn't apply as specifically as this --...

There's never been a rule that the government has to pay for 100% of regulation exclusively using general taxes. If anything, the inspection fees in this case are essentially tariffs, which are more historically and Constitutionally established than taxes are.

So the short version is that from a legal point of view, the court can -- and arguably should, following the principle of legal parsimony -- declare that it isn't going to set a precedent on Chevron deference because the legal authority that is being challenged doesn't actually rest on Chevron...

In my opinion, this is not a great test case for challenging Chevron Deference. The written letter of the law explicitly grants the Department of Ecology authority to require at-sea inspection monitors as part of its fishery management programs, explicitly grants the Department authority to...

Minors were commonly allowed to use firearms, but weren't allowed to *own* them because at that point in time, a minor was quite unambiguously not a legal person in the first place and thus self-evidently had no ability to possess *anything* in the eyes of the law.

Indeed. It is complete BS to selectively apply past precedent from when 21 was the age of legal majority to argue that young adults in the 18-21 age don't really have Constitutional rights as adults.

It explicitly re-legalizes part kits which is what the new rule was meant to outlaw, but a *fully functional* firearm is still a firearm.