Quote of the day—Ryan D. Nelson

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
Circuit Judge
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.

From Court: California’s Under-21 Gun Sales Ban Unconstitutional:

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.

SAF also has things to say:

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]

Share

6 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Ryan D. Nelson

  1. While I like the outcome, I have always viewed “scrutiny” whether strict or intermediate, as unconstitutional excuses for letting the government do things that the plain letter of the law prohibits.
    Jefferson did not specifically reject the notion of “scrutiny” (perhaps because no one had conceived of such a notion in his time) he explained quite well why it is wrong:
    “Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should therefore be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense; and their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure” — Thomas Jefferson

    • Ya, but without things like scrutiny. Their moral right to rule would be impugned.
      They would be petty slaves to someone else’s wording.
      Judges are a pretty eclectic brand of egomaniac. And like most lawyers, plain and simple just doesn’t work.
      Let’s face it. If our founders were alive today. No politician in DC would get out alive. (Least not without a good tar and feathering.)
      The 2A has always been plain as day. Maybe the judges are seeing what a loser the commies are on this one?

      • I recall studying the “Rational Basis Test” in Law School.
        I think the “Rational Basis Test” should be the “Non-Risible Test.” Any reason for the law that doesn’t cause the judges to laugh to themselves will do.
        If it is a right found in the Constitution, including the fact that the powers given to the Federal Government are specific and enumerated, then it should be examined with strict scrutiny.
        Why, except a line of suspect precedent, should any limits on the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and fourteenth Amendments be strictly considered, while the Second, Ninth, Tenth Amendments and others, be treated like suspect classifications themselves?

        • I think I didn’t explain my point correctly.
          “Intermediate scrutiny”, as WW points out, is legal gobbledygook for “you can infringe the people’s rights if you can come up with an excuse that isn’t completely ridiculous”. And “strict scrutiny” means “you can infringe on the people’s rights if you have a fairly decent sounding excuse”.
          In both cases, the judicial system permits violations of the Constitution, something that by their oath they are required not to permit. As the usual saying has it, “what part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED did you not understand?” When the 1st Amendment says “Congress shall make NO law” it means literally that. It doesn’t mean “it can make a law if it has a good excuse involving some handwaving about weighty state concerns and BS like that”.
          So as I see it, the alternative to “scrutiny” is “enforce the damn law, as written, in the plain English it clearly is. When it says Shall Not be Infringed it means precisely that, no exceptions, no nonsense.”

          • Absolutely. But were telling the thieves he can’t legally steal. No enforcement by us, so why should they stop?
            Brutality is all the animal understands.

  2. It’s a virtual certainty that this will go on to an ‘en banc’ hearing. And the full court has a long sad history of ignoring virtually all of our enumerated rights.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.