Even the 9th Circus gets it right!

[The War Wagon]

Thank the Lord Trump appointees drastically changed the 9th from a previous kangaroo court to mildly respectable in his 1st term!

[/url]
Ninth Circuit ‘reaffirms’ 2nd Amendment rights for young people
"Today we reaffirm that our Constitution still protects the right that enabled their sacrifice: the right of young adults to keep and bear arms," the panel ruled regarding a California ban on semiautomatic firearm sales to people under 21.
Maria Dinzeo / May 11, 2022
 

A variety of semi-automatic rifles (that are all illegal to own in CA anyways - regardless your age!!!). (Damian Dovarganes, Associated Press)
(CN) — Touting the heroism of young patriots who died fighting in the Revolutionary War, a Ninth Circuit panel declared Wednesday that the Second Amendment protects the rights of young adults to keep and bear arms — reversing a lower court judge’s decision upholding a California law barring young adults from buying semiautomatic rifles.
“America would not exist without the heroism of the young adults who fought and died in our revolutionary army. Today we reaffirm that our Constitution still protects the right that enabled their sacrifice: the right of young adults to keep and bear arms, ” Donald Trump appointee U.S. Circuit Judge Ryan Nelson [url=https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/9th-Circuit-gun-ruling-.pdf]wrote for the panel, which split on the issue of whether California’s prohibition on semiautomatic rifle sales to young people unduly burdens the Second Amendment.
Matthew Jones, a resident of the San Diego suburb of Santee, challenged the regulations alongside Vista resident Thomas Furth and several gun shops and pro-gun advocacy groups like Second Amendment Foundation and Calguns Foundation.
Nelson and U.S. Circuit Judge Kenneth Lee, also a Trump appointee, found U.S. District Judge M. James Lorenz should have blocked California’s ban on the sale of semiautomatic rifles to those between the ages of 18 and 21 except for some law enforcement officers and active-duty military servicemembers.
But the panel also found California’s separate ban on the sale of long guns to anyone under 21 without a hunting license was a reasonable fit for public safety purposes.
“The burden on Second Amendment rights posed by this rule on its face is not severe,” Nelson wrote. “The long gun regulation allows a young adult to buy a long gun if he gets a hunting license. This requirement does not prevent young adults from having any firearms or from using them in any particular way. Because this regulation does not impose a significant burden on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, the district court properly applied intermediate scrutiny.”
But Nelson and Lee departed from Lorenz on the semiautomatic rifle ban, finding he should have applied the most rigorous level of constitutional scrutiny.
“The main difference between this ban and the long gun regulation is the exceptions,” Nelson wrote. “The long gun regulation has a readily available exception, at least on its face — young adults can get hunting licenses. The semiautomatic rifle ban has no such exception: the only young adults who can buy semiautomatic rifles are some law enforcement officers and active-duty military servicemembers.
Nelson added that the semioaumatic rifle rule’s slight exceptions amount to a blanket ban for most young people.
“It’s one thing to say that young adults must take a course and purchase a hunting license before obtaining certain firearms,” he continued. “But to say that they must become police officers or join the military? For most young adults, that is no exception at all.”
Nelson also said the law unfairly lumps all young people together in relying on statistics that show they are disproportionately more likely to commit violent crimes, and especially gun crimes. “But as plaintiffs point out, only 0.25% of young adults are arrested for violent crimes. In other words, California’s law sweeps in 400 times (100% divided by 0.25%) more young adults than would be ideal,” Nelson wrote. “Because it regulates so much more conduct than necessary to achieve its goal, the law is unlikely to be a reasonable fit for California’s objectives.”
Nelson also relied heavily on the history of colonial militias and English law and custom in determining the extent of the Second Amendment’s reach, writing, “As far back as medieval times, able-bodied men aged 15 and older were compelled to possess personal arms and had a duty, when asked, to use those personal arms to maintain the king’s peace and protect their communities and property.”
American colonists carried that tradition forward by establishing militias and requiring young adults aged 18 to 20 to show up for duty with their own guns.
Nelson wrote that at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification, Congress passed the Militia Act of 1792 that mandated militia duty and firearm possession for young adults.
“The Second Amendment refers to the militia, and young adults had to be in the militia and bring their own firearms,” he added. “This reference implies at least that young adults needed to have their own firearms.”
The majority also found the ban is a severe burden on the right of self-defense in the home. The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Heller already bars young adults from buying a handgun, “the quintessential self-defense weapon,” Nelson wrote, and “this ban now stops them from buying semiautomatic rifles, leaving only shotguns. So handguns aside, this law takes away one
of the two remaining practical options for self-defense in the home, and leaves young adults with a self-defense weapon which is not ideal or even usable in many scenarios. That is a severe burden.”
Lee penned a strongly worded concurrence reiterating that the state’s good intentions in promoting public safety should not trump an enumerated constitutional right.
“[W]e do not impinge on the First Amendment based on the outlier actions of a few who may abuse that right. Nor should we with the Second Amendment,” he wrote, adding, “Simply put, we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable.”
U.S. District Judge Sidney Stein, a Bill Clinton appointee who joined the panel by designation from the Southern District of New York, agreed with Nelson and Lee that Judge Lorenz did not err in declining to enjoin California’s requirement that young adults obtain hunting license to purchase a long gun, but dissented from his colleagues on the semiautomatic rifle ban.
Stein said neither of the laws are categorial bans, and are consistent with the well-established custom of restricting the access of certain groups to firearms for public safety reasons.
“While I do not dispute that the semiautomatic rifle regulation places burdens on young adults who wish to purchase or otherwise receive semiautomatic centerfire rifles from FFLs [federally licensed firearms dealers], I do not find that it is a ‘severe burden’ on young adults’ Second Amendment rights,” since young people have other options for self-defense, Stein wrote in dissent.
Stein said the fact that young adults commit a disproportionate amount of violent gun crimes, as well as their relative immaturity, is enough to show that the regulation should stand.
Esther Sanchez-Gomez, Senior Litigation Attorney with Giffords Law Center who filed an amicus brief in the case, called the opinion a “dangerous misinterpretation” of the Second Amendment, and took issue with a footnote in Lee’s dissent that says there have been a “minuscule” percentage of mass shootings in the U.S.; 170 since 1966.
“Gun violence’s toll on our communities is not a “minuscule’ problem and today’s decision will only exacerbate an already deadly problem,” Sanchez-Gomez said in a statement to Courthouse News.
Sanchez-Gomez praised Judge Stein’s dissent saying it “calls out many of the majority’s failings.”
“While dismissing the significant number of historical laws limiting young adult firearm possession—and acknowledging that the age of majority at the founding was 21—the court nevertheless concluded that the Second Amendment historically protected the rights of young adults to possess firearms,” she said. “In considering the law’s ‘fit’ with its stated purpose, the court recognized how young people are disproportionately involved in violent crime and that this law would promote public safety, but went out of its way to legislate from the bench, suggesting that the law should have incorporated individualized assessments.”
Sanchez-Gomez said the opinion will be problematic for lower courts hearing similar cases, but “the 9th Circuit may have an opportunity to correct this result if it takes the case en banc.”
Haley Proctor, a lawyer who argued for the plaintiffs, did not respond to a request for comment Wednesday.
A spokesperson for California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in an email that his office is reviewing the decision. “California will continue to take all necessary steps to prevent and reduce gun violence,” they said. “We remain committed to defending California’s commonsense gun laws, which save lives and make our communities safer.”