Surprising results from the Ninth Circuit on the Second Amendment

[tvc184]

For those people who may actually care about lower court decisions….

The virtually always left leaning Ninth Circuit in California (covering all federal appeals from CA, AL, AK, HI, OR, WA, NV, ID and MT) maybe shocked the country.

The case of Nguyen v. Bonta was a lawsuit against California for the 1 in 30 law. One in 30 was a law that only allowed a person to buy one firearm every 30 days.

The oral arguments were only a day ago. I watched a little on replays and it was brutal. The California attorney was left almost literally babbling at the questions posed to him. Almost shocking was the questions from an Obama appointee.

Questions like, would it be absurd to think that you could only buy one book, wouldn’t you think? Or you can only attend one protest s month?

I believe it was the Obama appointee who asked, what if I have a home and a business and I decide that I am now going to protect them with a firearm. How do I get a second gun to protect both premises? The state of California attorney answered, I guess you’ll have to borrow one. 🤣🤣🤣

I thought this case might take weeks to determine and it took one day for a unanimous three judge decision.

What does this mean? At the moment it means that the California law is unconstitutional. It is not common…. except in the Ninth Circuit, to ask for and receive an en banc review or instead of a three judge panel which is normal, to all judges in the circuit so maybe 20 judges. Most of the time en banc requests are rejected but the Ninth Circuit seems to love to strike down favorable Second Amendment cases.

A youtube video that I watched seemed to think that the Ninth Circuit would reject an en banc review in this case because the federal trial judge said that the law was clearly unconstitutional and now a three judge panel has said the think, making it so far four federal judges including that Obama judge, who slapped this case down quickly. It was almost like they were saying, why are we even reviewing this?

I am not so confident, but things are looking up when in California court finds unanimously that this is a stupid case even to review.

[Death from Above]

Thanks for taking the time to share this

[ThisLadyHunts]

I have never heard of an "en band" review. I think I understand that it is limited to a panel of three judges, but I'm not understanding the significance of a four-judge panel and how that might affect the sturdiness of their ruling.

Am I asking a logical question or am I way off into the weeds in terms of my understanding?

[Texas452]

I can’t understand why they would come up with a law like that, criminals don’t buy guns from the gun shop, for the most part, law abiding citizens do.
I guess I can understand, it’s all about control.

[tvc184]

I have never heard of an "en band" review. I think I understand that it is limited to a panel of three judges, but I'm not understanding the significance of a four-judge panel and how that might affect the sturdiness of their ruling.

Am I asking a logical question or am I way off into the weeds in terms of my understanding?

All trials or lawsuits start in the federal system at the district court level. That is the trial court or the equivalent of a Texas court that hears a murder case or a lawsuit. An appeal from the district court goes to the circuit courts which have jurisdiction over several states (except the DC circuit). What a court rules usually sets precedent in those states only unless overturned by the Supreme Court, making it a national precedent. For example there is currently a Fifth Circuit ruling out of New Orleans that Texas must issue LTCs to 18-20 year olds even though Texas law says that to have an LTC a person has to be 21. That ruling only applies in the Fifth Circuit so the ruling only applies to TX, LA and MS.

Each circuit court hears or rejects hundreds of cases. They are not like the Supreme Court where all justices always hear all cases. There might be 15-21 justices assigned to each circuit court.

When a case is heard a three judge panel hears the case as you stated. They are randomly assigned.

Once the three judge panel issues a ruling, an appeal can be made not only to the Supreme Court which everyone knows about but also to the entire circuit court of the 15-21 justices. That is an En Banc appeal or an appeal to the entire court.

Each circuit has rules on how many justices have to agree to hear the En Banc case. Maybe a circuit that has 15 justices might require 7 of them to vote to hear the case. If so then the entire 15 judge circuit renders a ruling that can overturn the three judge ruling.

Typically En Banc cases are not granted. If every case is going to end up being heard by the entire court then why waste time with three judge panels? Some three judge decisions though are so far out there that a majority of the circuit disagrees and basically says, “We can’t let this nonsense stand!”. I can’t remember which case but recently the Fifth Circuit Court (our circuit) made a horrible decision on gun rights out of Texas. The three judge panel chosen at random must have gotten an ultra progressive bunch and they ruled against the Second Amendment. The Fifth Circuit stepped in and slapped the liberal justices down with something like a 12-6 En Banc vote.

So it’s a tool not often used but it isn’t rare either, especially for some (what I call) fringe circuits) with an obvious agenda. The Ninth Circuit Court recently has reversed a couple of cases En Banc that were in favor of gun rights. It is like no matter what the gun issue is, the Ninth Circuit will not let a pro gun case stand.

As far as the four justices in this case, that was the district judge at the trial court level saying that said the 1 in 30 law was unconstitutional and then the three justices in the case in front of the Ninth Circuit. So it was four federal justices total in rather adamant form stating that the CA was clearly unconstitutional. One of the talking heads that I watched on Youtube was of the opinion that since so far four justices have voted against the unconstitutional law and none have voted the other way, the Ninth Circuit would likely not allow an En Banc review.

I am not that confident. The Ninth Circuit and I believe it’s the Seventh Circuit out of IL that seem to be very anti- Second Amendment and overturn almost any three justice pro Second Amendment decision.

For now however the district judge and the three judge panel have issued strongly worded decisions on the stupid and unconstitutional CA law.

So that is a brief (🤣🤣🤣) description of En Banc.

[ThisLadyHunts]

Thank you for the explanation. It was thorough without being pedantic which, given the obvious complexity of the federal judicial system, is no easy task.

Aside from the fact that I now have an understanding of the concept of en banc decisions, another thing of which I was unaware is the autonomy between the courts within each system (I.e., the various district courts or the various circuit courts)…and the absence of consistency between one another in their rulings. On the one hand, this blew my mind. However, in thinking about it, it makes sense given that each of these systems has no overriding authority whose dictum(?) they have to adhere to.

Thanks again for responding to my question. I know it was no small feat to pull this information together, especially when wanting to be concise as well as brief (for me, this usually means no fewer than three drafts!).

[Drycreek3189]

You are so right in your assessment of the Ninth Circuit, historically they have rubber stamped anything anti 2nd Amendment. Every now and then they surprise us, but not often. The Supreme Court, having ruled in favor of the 2nd several times in the last few years might have had a bearing on that. It doesn’t look good for a lower court to have their hand slapped too much, but who knows, they may not care about that. Let’s just be glad for small favors !

[tvc184]

Thank you for the explanation. It was thorough without being pedantic which, given the obvious complexity of the federal judicial system, is no easy task.

Aside from the fact that I now have an understanding of the concept of en banc decisions, another thing of which I was unaware is the autonomy between the courts within each system (I.e., the various district courts or the various circuit courts)…and the absence of consistency between one another in their rulings. On the one hand, this blew my mind. However, in thinking about it, it makes sense given that each of these systems has no overriding authority whose dictum(?) they have to adhere to.

Thanks again for responding to my question. I know it was no small feat to pull this information together, especially when wanting to be concise as well as brief (for me, this usually means no fewer than three drafts!).

Thank you.

You are correct on the overriding authority between courts. The issue with circuit court jurisdiction being over only some states (Texas has the same basic system) is that if it was not limited, we would in effect have 14 different Supreme Courts. Imagine that fiasco.

Typically when there is a wide difference in opinion between circuits is when the Supreme Court steps in with a final ruling. If circuits generally agree, the Supreme Court tries to stay out unless they have a point to make.

[tvc184]

And now from the Eighth Circuit which covers MN, ND, SD, NE, IA, MO and AR….

MN like most states has law prohibiting the public carry of handguns for 18-20 year olds. It was appealed to the Eighth Circuit in St. Louis and the usual three judge panel ruled the law is unconstitutional. The state of Minnesota requested an en banc review of the ruling and the Eight Circuit refused the en banc review, allowing the ruling to stand that restricting an 18-year-old home carrying a handgun in public was unconstitutional.

That is now two circuit courts we have recently ruled that once a person turns 18 and is an adult under a federal law, the state cannot restrict any rights, including the Second Amendment.

Next stop, the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can take cases for a final ruling or simply allow the circuit courts’ decisions as final, setting precedent.

Under the Supreme Court cases of Heller and Bruen (I believe they are now calling it Bruen methodology), for a law on firearms to stand constitutional scrutiny, the state has to show similar laws in most states around the time of the passing of the Bill of Rights. Basically, it has to be looked at through the eyes of the people who passed the amendment. If it was generally constitutional back then, it should be constitutional today. I think that they are going to be hard-pressed to find any analogous examples from around the late 1700s where 18-year-olds could not carry firearms. In fact, that is what California attempted to do when I started this topic and the Ninth Circuit panel slapped the state of California hard.

[ThisLadyHunts]

Is this the start of a groundswell at the district court level or are these just two different rulings coincidental to each other? And why now?

[tvc184]

Is this the start of a groundswell at the district court level or are these just two different rulings coincidental to each other? And why now?

They are virtually identical rulings.

The Supreme Court will usually step in where there is a majority conflict between circuit courts.

The Supreme Court could refuse an appeal by Minnesota thereby endorsing the ruling and setting precedent without the need to take the case.

Another circuit like the Second Circuit (NY, VT, CT) could throw a wrench into the plans by ruling that 18 years olds were not covered by the Second Amendment which would almost force the Supreme Court to step in and break the tie.

Why now? NYSRPA v. Bruen.

The Supreme Court in 2022 set the methodology that for a state law to withstand a challenge of having an unconstitutional law, the state needs to show similar laws (not a single law in a state or two) from the era of the ratification of the Second Amendment. So basically to justify a law the state needs to show from the1790s to the early 1800s that the Founding Fathers were okay with some restrictions. From looking at cases I believe they have found laws in the era that prohibit the carrying of weapons into a courtroom. So laws prohibiting the carrying of weapons into a trial would likely be ruled as constitutional.

So why all of a sudden this flurry of cases from the Ninth, Eighth and Fifth Circuits? In my opinion Bruen changed the game. That is why the Biden administration is so hot to try to fundamentally change the Supreme Court.

[ThisLadyHunts]

They are virtually identical rulings.

The Supreme Court will usually step in where there is a majority conflict between circuit courts.

The Supreme Court could refuse an appeal by Minnesota thereby endorsing the ruling and setting precedent without the need to take the case.

Another circuit like the Second Circuit (NY, VT, CT) could throw a wrench into the plans by ruling that 18 years olds were not covered by the Second Amendment which would almost force the Supreme Court to step in and break the tie.

Why now? NYSRPA v. Bruen.

The Supreme Court in 2022 set the methodology that for a state law to withstand a challenge of having an unconstitutional law, the state needs to show similar laws (not a single law in a state or two) from the era of the ratification of the Second Amendment. So basically to justify a law the state needs to show from the1790s to the early 1800s that the Founding Fathers were okay with some restrictions. From looking at cases I believe they have found laws in the era that prohibit the carrying of weapons into a courtroom. So laws prohibiting the carrying of weapons into a trial would likely be ruled as constitutional.

So why all of a sudden this flurry of cases from the Ninth, Eighth and Fifth Circuits? In my opinion Bruen changed the game. That is why the Biden administration is so hot to try to fundamentally change the Supreme Court.

Wow, what an eye opener. As always, thanks for the insight and edification!