It is a Miracle in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals!

Posted on by

SAF HAILS 9TH CIRCUIT DENIAL OF EN BANC HEARING IN JUNIOR SPORTS CASE – Second Amendment Foundation

The Second Amendment Foundation is cheering the decision by a 9th Circuit Court panel to deny the State of California an en banc hearing in a case known as Junior Sports Magazines, Inc. v. Bonta, in which the state tried to prohibit firearm advertising which it claims, “reasonably appears to be attractive to minors.”

SAF is joined in the case by Junior Sports Magazines, the California Youth Shooting Sports Association, Redlands California Youth Clay Shooting Sports, California Rifle & Pistol Association, CRPA Foundation, Gun Owners of California and Raymond Brown, a private citizen.

“It seems like forever since the 9th Circuit has refused to hear a gun case en banc,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Hopefully, this is a new trend.”

SAF attorney Donald Kilmer noted, “This means that our win before the three-judge panel will become the case law on this issue in the Ninth Circuit. It means the trial court’s denial of a preliminary injunction remains reversed and that court will be required to enter a preliminary injunction, preventing enforcement of this law while the case proceeds to final judgment.”

SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut said the court’s decision is a victory for the First Amendment as well as the Second.

“The state was determined to regulate the First Amendment as well as the Second,” Kraut stated, “and we prevented California from continuing to enact unconstitutional laws. We’re pleased the 9th Circuit has decided to leave the panel’s decision undisturbed.”

This is a ground-breaking First Amendment case, which defends the right of Junior Sports Magazine and other periodicals to publish Second Amendment-related material in California.

It is a miracle! The 9th Circuit Court of appeals is allowing a court ruling in favor of gun owners to stand.

Share

4 thoughts on “It is a Miracle in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals!”

  2. Pleasant surprise, but not really a hard-core 2A issue. They might begrudgingly rule to support the First Amendment, but the Ninth is still firmly entrenched in anti-rights attitude when it comes to issues directly rated to an armed citizenry. Pretty obvious hypocrisy.

    • OTOH, someone who disrespects and disavows the 2nd Amendment, deep down usually feels the same way about the other nine, at least for some people (never for themselves).

      IOW, if such a person could dump on the 1st Amendment, especially as it pertains to people aligned with the 2nd — gun owners and businesses — under an argument that doing so “increases public safety”, they absolutely would.

      They either couldn’t make such an argument work, or they’re actually taking SCOTUS’ precedents and instructions seriously for once.

      (Alternatively, if they did hear the case en banc and find against the plaintiffs’ 1st Amendment rights, it would certainly be appealed, and then they risk SCOTUS taking the case, reversing the 9th Circuit’s holding, and making precedent that applies to the whole nation — and they didn’t want to risk that. The question is, will the State get the memo? Or will they try to appeal and risk it all? Find out next time, on Press Your Luck!)

  3. Robert Bonta has so many 2A (and other) cases in the works with him as a listed defendant, that I wonder how they will be referred to in short-hand in the future. They can’t ALL be Bonta!

    (Yes, I know some will take the names of the plaintiffs. What I don’t know is who decides this, or if it’s just kind of settled on in the aftermath, kind of like how Bruen is also known as NYSRPA II as their second major lawsuit against New York State and its Superintendent of State Police, but MOST people refer to it as Bruen.)

Comments are closed.