9th Circus up to their same old tricks?

[Oathkeeper1775]

I was born in the city but I was still taught never count your chickens before there're hatched.

The key part of gun control is control. I don't work from the point of view that government wants to give up control. They keep adding laws (taillight, cross walk, magazine capacity) but they never remove old laws from the books. I am prepared to be disappointed.

Another "balancing" perspective; frame of reference is a life in the military. It includes living, working, and playing on Federal installations where ALL firearms must be reported, (and kept in the arms room if a GI lives bachelor quarters (barracks)).

Another is growing up in CA (61-79) where citizens were (and are) brainwashed with excuses like the numbers of people require gun control.

I may be too pragmatic in my mid 50s, but I believe the challenges to our Individual Liberties (I/L) serves at least two positive outcomes:

1. Adversity makes us stronger; a weaker opponent does little towards being a better fighter..

2. Fighting for I/L creates a better sense of ownership. "Ownership" represents everything worth fighting for.

While I'm opposed to any and all incroachments to I/L , I too, look for the benefits of a good fight wherever I can find them.

 

[etrain16]

Another "balancing" perspective; frame of reference is a life in the military. It includes living, working, and playing on Federal installations where ALL firearms must be reported, (and kept in the arms room if a GI lives bachelor quarters (barracks)).

Another is growing up in CA (61-79) where citizens were (and are) brainwashed with excuses like the numbers of people require gun control.

I may be too pragmatic in my mid 50s, but I believe the challenges to our Individual Liberties (I/L) serves at least two positive outcomes:

1. Adversity makes us stronger; a weaker opponent does little towards being a better fighter..

2. Fighting for I/L creates a better sense of ownership. "Ownership" represents everything worth fighting for.

While I'm opposed to any and all incroachments to I/L , I too, look for the benefits of a good fight wherever I can find them.

I think you're on to something there. Just look at the change in attitude among gun owners since Trump was elected. Sales os guns and accessories plummeted, discussions on gun rights have all but disappeared from forums and gun rights groups have seen donations fall off considerably.

Perhaps it's just folks taking a breather after an 8-year assault on our rights, with those final 4-years being particularly bad. Or maybe it's apathy. The fight isn't really on right now, so I'll focus on other things. Either way, it seems many eyes are currently off the prize.

Sad as it is to say it, it seems many gun owners only get involved when there is an active threat to their rights. I can think of only 2 times this year where folks kind of got fired up - the congressional republican baseball team shooting and Vegas. And even with that, here we are a week later and chatter here on the forum about Vegas has gone nearly silent.

So maybe, as you propose, we're at our best when a battle is looming - we're better prepared, ready to respond, eager to help.

 

[nwslopoke]

One of the major elements of the fight or battle for (gun) rights is to convert non gun people to be open minded. I've conceded gun people and gun rights people are at odds as much as republicans/democrats. "Gun" people want their pistols, revolvers and hunting rifles. Gun rights people want the rights God gave us. Fighting gun people is a lost cause.

 

[Slobray]

Surprised no one has posted yet....9th Circuit overruled the previous decision en banc yesterday and has ruled that 2A does not "confer a freestanding right on commercial proprietors to sell firearms." http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/10/10/13-17132.pdf

I missed that, thank you for posting it.


On a side note, it kinda looks like I knew what I was talking about (which does happen on a rare occasion)............

Ninth Circuit Will Revisit Controversial Gun Case


Every time that the stars align and a pro 2A ruling miraculously comes out of the 9th Circus; all the anti-gun justices on the court petition for the an en banc review or a rehearing, so they can stack the panel with a majority of anti-gun justices.

Does anyone actually believe that it will be different this time? I don't.



Ray

Ray

 

[Slobray]

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/10/10/13-17132.pdf

One thought on this decision after reading it................

When they start quoting the "1689 English Bill of Rights" and English laws that predate our Constitution and nation by 100-150 years to make their case; you know they just trying to pull something out of their asses to make it sound like they are not biased and haven't already made their decision before hand.

The best parts are of this is where Judge Richard C. Tallman (who surprisingly is a Clinton appointee) and Judge Carlos T. Bea (G. W. Bush appointee) call out the anti's in the 9th Circus and the bias of the Alemeda County officials (emphasis mine)..........

I fear today's decision inflicts yet another wound on our precious constitutional right.

Snip

Today's decision perpetuates our continuing infringement on the fundamental right of gun owners enshrined in the Second Amendment. We cannot analyze constitutional rights in a vacuum; instead, we must analyze the totality of the impact of gun control regulations like these—local, state, and federal—in determining how severely the fundamental liberty protected by the Second Amendment is being burdened. In states like California, that burden is becoming substantial in light of continuing anti-gun legislation5 and our decisions upholding such laws. See Chovan, 735 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2013); Jackson, 746 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2014) (upholding an ordinance requiring handguns inside the home to be stored in locked containers or disabled with a trigger lock when not being carried on the person); Peruta v. Cty. of San Diego, 824 F.3d 919 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 1995 (2017) (holding the Second Amendment does not protect the right to carry a concealed weapon in public where
the sheriff's policy required "good cause" to obtain permits to do so, and refused applicants who could offer no justification beyond claiming the need for self-defense); Silvester v. Harris, 843 F.3d 816 (9th Cir. 2016) (upholding a 10-day waiting period for purchasers who already had a concealed-carry permit and already cleared a background check); Nordyke v. King, 681 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2012) (upholding an Alameda County ordinance that regulates the sale of firearms at gun shows).


Our cases continue to slowly carve away the fundamental right to keep and bear arms. Today's decision further lacerates the Second Amendment, deepens the wound, and resembles the Death by a Thousand Cuts.

It is much less likely that the health and safety of Alameda residents can be stated with a straight face as a "substantial" or "compelling" justification for the regulation as is required under the intermediate scrutiny test. No sociological study is needed to assert that gun buyers and gun sellers constitute a "politically unpopular group" in Alameda County within the meaning of Moreno. That the vote to deny Appellants' variance was purely political, and not based on an independent finding of danger to citizens, is confirmed by the record's utter lack of even the most minimal explanation for the Supervisors' vote.

Snip

Here, as in Ezell, the majority merely speculates that the proximity of guns, in a gun store, threatens the County residents' health and safety. The County doesn't even speculate. Not only do the Planning Department of the County's Community Development Agency and the West County Board of Zoning Adjustments categorically deny that the threat exists, but ironically, it is just the other way around: As noted in the panel's now-vacated decision, it is precisely in residences where the core Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is most pronounced and protected. See Teixeira, 822 F.3d at 1061. The closer the store to residences, the easier for residents to buy guns and the safer the residences.

Snip

In sum, this case does not present merely a "zoning dispute" dressed up in Second Amendment garb. Id. at 1064 (Silverman, J., dissenting). If there were a zoning measure of general application to bar retail stores of any kind within 500 feet of residences to lower traffic or noise, we wouldn't be here. But when law-abiding citizens are burdened in the exercise of their Second Amendment rights to purchase firearms and train, license, and maintain them for their selfdefense, the Government must justify its actions by proving the existence of a substantial governmental interest and that its regulation is reasonably tailored to achieve such interest—the intermediate scrutiny test. See Jackson, 746 F.3d at 965. That, it has not done.

Ray