Quote of the Day
Today’s mandate issued by the Ninth Circuit marks the first time the court has issued a final decision striking down a law for infringing on the Second Amendment. Between Heller and Bruen, every case heard by a panel which concluded the law was contrary to the Second Amendment was reheard en banc by the court and ultimately upheld. This is a historic victory for Second Amendment rights in the Ninth Circuit and marks a measurable defeat for Governor Newsom and the legislature’s attempts to curtail the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms in California.
Adam Kraut
SAF Executive Director
August 14, 2025
SAF, PARTNERS SECURE HISTORIC VICTORY IN NINTH CIRCUIT – Second Amendment FoundationThe defendants chose not to request an en banc hearing, so we don’t need to worry about that anymore. This is the final decision.
Pyrrhic victory. California is about to pass a 3 in 30 days law to replace the one-gun-a-month that was just struck down and the whole litigation process will begin anew. The Court only agreed 1 a month was Unconstitutional. There is no finding around 3 in a month.
This is how these states are ignoring Bruen and Heller. “Well, the rulings didn’t say explicitly this thing I want to do is Unconstitutional, so I will!” When it is challenged and overturned, they go “Well, the ruling said THAT approach was Unconstitutional, not this tweaked version. This is different!”
“Those guns are in common use. Not these.”
“No one said a box with a spring holding more than 10 was Unconstitutional and NY said 8 was wrong so we have history on our side!”
“Well, Bruen said permits were ok provided we issued them to anyone who qualified. They didn’t say we couldn’t impose fees, waiting periods, arbitrary investigation times and training requirements.”
I predict the 3 in 30 will pass and this whole thing starts again. And because they get to defend their laws with our money and we have to pay to litigate it, we pay for both our infringement of rights and the attempt to restore them. What a messed-up world we live in!
I agree with your prediction that the 3 in 30 law will pass. I also predict that a permanent injunction will be issued shortly after the good guys get a hearing. For the clues as to why this will happen, do a search for “meaningful constraints” in the ruling linked to above. I would not be surprised if the good guys will get their lawyer fees reimbursed as well.
This is why I think we need an infringement compensation law. All affected persons are due compensation for law, rule or regulation implementing an infringement, whether or not they can document a personal impact. If they could document an impact, that could be a separate civil claim against the class of infringers.
Who would pay it? Well, not the taxpayers. The Constitution is clear that government can’t implement an infringement, so any infringement must be an abuse of office and therefore the compensation must come from those that implemented of their own free will it in the individual capacity.
I figure we can start calculating what that compensation should be using the DoT’s Value of a Statistical Life, the affected area’s violent crime victimization rate converted to an individual daily risk rate, the dependency rate (you’re carrying on behalf of yourself and dependent children and elderly) and a percentage greater than 0% (a trivial infringement that is nevertheless non-zero, like a law requiring batteries in powered optics to be rechargeable) and up to 100% (which would represent a complete prohibition). I think I calculated this number in 2022 to be almost $300 per day for a total national gun ban.
If the infringement has a defined process for determining compensation, then mooting a law doesn’t make it go away, or restart the clock. It would have to be litigated to the end to get a court ordered final determination what that percentage is, and who is in the class of infringers that owes the class of infringed, then announce that people that document presence (residency or temporary presence) in the affected area can identify for compensation.
Since failure to enjoin or restrain an infringement would put a judge in the class of infringers should the issue at hand be ultimately found to be an infringement, the right move for a judge would be to hold enforcement of the law until it has been completely litigated. That would limit the exposure of the legislative infringers, as well, since they’re on the hook from the first day of enforcement until the day of repeal, less any days enjoined/restrained. Same with senior executive branch persons; the lower level cops could always file a “I believe this to be an infringement and object to enforcing it absent direct individualized written order to comply or be fired” which would put their burden right back on the executive branch decision-maker.
In our era of widespread TDS, it would be relatively easy to get support for such a law from the Democrats.
We’ll see, Joe. Unfortunately, this is the Ninth and we’ve seen strategic shenanigans from them before. Just because the ruling implies 3 in 30 is just as bad as 1 in 30 doesn’t mean the Ninth Circus won’t provide their own flawed interpretation and litigate the matter for the next decade just because they can.
The anti-gun States have also gotten smarter on these matters and not appealing certain rulings to prevent them from reaching the Supreme Court. Easier to let this be a circuit decision and avoid a split. Another tactic they’ve been using with AWBs and other restrictions in WA and IL. No circuit split, much harder to get cert.
I think 3 in 30 passes, a challenge occurs, 3 judge panel overturns on 2A grounds, Ninth steps in and forces en-banc, slow walks it and waits five years to issue a ruling. I think the “meaningful constraints” language gets crushed under a mountain of verbiage like a sumo wrestler sitting on a rattlesnake (from another 2A decision).
As above, we need a way to reliably and promptly penalize legislators and judges PERSONALLY for laws they pass that are struck down as unconstitutional.
Also, just like state redraw legislative district lines as populations change, the US circuit courts of appeal need to be rebalanced. The largest one, the 9th, has more than 67M people, while the smallest non-DC court, the 1st, has a little over 14M people. Also, totally different populations are represented by the same courts, like MT and CA in the 9th, with Maine and RI in the 1st. Rejigger the boundaries and states, as well as the judges, after letting them finish any appeals moving through their current feeders. Then offer: move, retire, or change circuit?