Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Order KEEP AND BEAR: THE MOVIE now for FREE shipping and a FREE bumper sticker!
Store

Just as CNN is THE most liberal anti-American media in the nation, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is THE most liberal anti-American court in all of America. They have a history of issuing anti-First, Second and Fourth Amendment rulings. If possible, this court seems determined to single-handedly destroy as many constitutional rights of the American people as possible.

Once again, the 9th Circuit Court (3 judge panel) lived up to it’s reputation by claiming that California’s Unsafe Handgun Act (UHA) does not violate the Second Amendment and therefore is constitutional and legal.

(Gun Watch) – A three judge panel in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled the restrictions of the California Unsafe Handgun Act (UHA) do not violate the Second Amendment.  In circular reasoning, the opinion posits the UHA restrictions do not restrict behavior protected by the Second Amendment. They then apply the least restrictive Constitutional test to determine if the behavior is protected. Unsurprisingly, they find that it is not.

The key to the decision is the Ninth Circuit’s hostility to a broad reading of the Second Amendment. The Circuit, in it’s en banc rulings, such as PerutaTiexeira v. County of Alameda, and in a three judge panel, Silvester v. Harris, has consistently worked to restrict Second Amendment rights to the narrowest possible box.  An analogous reading of the First Amendment would be that the State can restrict certain publications on the grounds that they might impact public safety. For example, that violent video games could be banned. The Supreme Court has rejected that argument for the First Amendment.

Trending: Chicago Mayor Wants MORE Gun Control

Here is the summation of the opinion of the court, From Pena v. Lindley:

California requires that new models of handguns meet certain criteria, and be listed on a handgun roster, before they may be offered for sale in the state. Two provisions require that a handgun have a chamber load indicator and a magazine detachment mechanism, both of which are designed to limit accidental firearm discharges. The third provision, adopted to aid law enforcement, requires new handguns to stamp microscopically the handgun’s make, model, and serial number onto each fired shell casing. Plaintiffs asserted that these three provisions have narrowed their ability to buy firearms in California, in violation of the Second Amendment, and that the handgun roster scheme imposes irrational exceptions, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment…

The question being asked now, is if this case will be appealed to the US Supreme Court. Based on history, the Supreme Court has yet to take up an appeal of a 9th Circuit Court’s ruling on a Second Amendment issue. However, with Gorsuch now on the bench and possibly Kavanaugh, that could change, which would be a good thing for gun rights advocates.

READ MORE HERE

 

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

Become an Insider!

Enter your email address below to stay in the loop and read our latest and greatest updates!

Send this to a friend