The district court erred by applying intermediate scrutiny, rather than strict scrutiny, to the semiautomatic centerfire rifle ban. And even under intermediate scrutiny, this ban likely violates the Second Amendment because it fails the “reasonable fit” test. Finally, the district court also abused its discretion in finding that Plaintiffs would not likely be irreparably harmed. We thus affirm the district court’s denial of an injunction as to the long gun regulation, reverse its denial of an injunction as to the semiautomatic centerfire rifle ban, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Ryan D. Nelson
May 11, 2022
Jones v. Bonta
[Via a message from Law Firm of SolitaryPoorNastyBrutish&Short, who sent me this link: Ninth Circuit Strikes Down Restriction on Gun Purchase by 18-to-20-Year-Olds:
From Judge Lee in the case:
If we accept the state’s argument, it redefines intermediate scrutiny as a rational basis review with a small sprinkle of skepticism in Second Amendment cases. And that would allow the government to trample over constitutional rights just by relying on anecdotal evidence and questionable statistics that loosely relate to a worthwhile government goal. If California can deny the Second Amendment right to young adults based on their group’s disproportionate involvement in violent crimes, then the government can deny that right—as well as other rights—to other groups.
For example, California arguably has a more compelling case if it enacts a similar gun-control law that targets males of all ages instead of young adults. Statistics— and science—show that men almost exclusively commit violent crimes. Take mass shootings for instance. Men have been involved in 99% of all mass shootings in America since 1966, according to a database maintained by the Violence Project.2 California can thus theoretically claim that if men cannot own firearms, it will eliminate 99% of mass shootings.
Our Constitution provides a guarantee of our rights and freedoms. For the most part, people exercise their rights in responsible and productive ways. A tiny percentage, however, does not. But we should not sanction restricting a constitutional right by solely focusing on the few who abuse it.
Federal judges can read the tea leaves. In the coming years, the courts seem certain to strike down numerous gun safety measures in the name of the 2nd Amendment. This 9th Circuit ruling is a harbinger of things to come.
this ruling could have an impact on another case challenging a similar prohibition in Washington State, which is also part of the Ninth Circuit. There, the prohibition was adopted via a citizen initiative in 2018, and was challenged by SAF and the National Rifle Association.
I haven’t read the entire 100 pages of the opinion. But the biggest win I saw was the strict scrutiny for semi-auto center-fire rifles.
Expect the ruling to be subjected to an en banc challenge and that panel decides elderly nuns in active military service can be banned from reading how to operate a semi-auto spitball shooter.—Joe]