In a controversial decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has vacated a lower court’s injunction, allowing California’s ban on gun shows on state property to be enforced, as reported by Copper Jacket TV. This decision has sparked significant outrage among Second Amendment advocates and raised questions about judicial interpretation and the application of recent Supreme Court rulings.
Background of the Case
The case in question, B&L Productions v. Newsom, centers on California’s law prohibiting gun shows on state property, such as fairgrounds. A lower court had previously issued an injunction against the ban, siding with the plaintiffs who argued that the law violated both the First and Second Amendments. However, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit overturned this injunction, a move that has drawn sharp criticism.
Ignoring the Bruen Decision
One of the primary points of contention is the Ninth Circuit’s handling of the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The Bruen decision, which redefined the legal landscape for gun rights, explicitly rejected the two-step approach often used in Second Amendment cases. Instead, it emphasized a historical and textual analysis of the Second Amendment.
A Direct Contradiction to Supreme Court Directives
According to Copper Jacket TV, the Ninth Circuit appeared to sidestep the Bruen decision. The court argued that the plain text of the Second Amendment was not implicated in this case, thereby justifying their avoidance of the Bruen standard. This interpretation has been seen as a direct contradiction to the Supreme Court’s directives.
The Court’s Rationale
The Ninth Circuit’s decision was based on several key arguments. First, they claimed that the First Amendment only covers “expressive activity,” and while offering a firearm for sale might qualify, the act of purchasing does not. Therefore, they concluded that the First Amendment did not apply to this case.
2A Says Nothing About Commerce
Regarding the Second Amendment, the court stated that while it protects the right to keep and bear arms, it “says nothing about commerce, let alone firearm sales on state property.” This interpretation effectively excludes the act of buying and selling firearms from Second Amendment protections.
Not a Violation
Moreover, the court argued that even if the Second Amendment were implicated, the ban would not violate it because it only eliminates one avenue for acquiring firearms, leaving other avenues available. This reasoning aligns with the Ninth Circuit’s history of upholding restrictive gun laws by focusing on the availability of alternative means.
Reaction from CRPA
The California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA), a prominent advocate for gun rights, expressed deep disappointment with the ruling. In their statement, they criticized the court’s failure to recognize the interconnectedness of First and Second Amendment rights. They vowed to continue their fight against what they see as an overreaching government infringing on fundamental rights.
The Future of the Case
The plaintiffs plan to appeal the Ninth Circuit’s decision, seeking an en banc hearing before the full panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. This move is seen as a crucial step in challenging the panel’s interpretation and potentially overturning the ruling. Given the current judicial landscape and the significance of the Bruen decision, this case is likely to attract considerable attention as it progresses.
“Unconstitutional Judges”
People in the comments shared their opinions: “The 9th circuit three judge panel needs to be removed from the bench for compartmentalizing the constitution. Government jobs are not a retirement home.”
Another person added: “If the 9th Circuit has 80% of their rulings over turned, why aren’t the Justices removed? Clearly they do not understand the law. Or just choose to ignore it. What other job can you get wrong 8 out of 10 times and remain employed?”
One commenter said: “When will SCOTUS , the top of the judicial system, step in and put charges against those unconstitutional judges ? They need to be placed in jail for not knowing their job and the rights of the American people.”
A Heated Debate
The Ninth Circuit’s ruling on California’s gun show ban has ignited a heated debate over judicial interpretation and the protection of constitutional rights. By seemingly ignoring the Supreme Court’s guidance in Bruen, the court has set the stage for a potentially landmark battle over the scope and application of the Second Amendment. As the legal fight continues, the outcome will have significant implications for gun rights and judicial precedent in the United States.
Protection of “Expressive Activity”
What are your thoughts? How should courts balance historical context with contemporary societal needs when interpreting constitutional rights? To what extent should lower courts be bound by recent Supreme Court decisions, especially in contentious areas like gun control? How should the First Amendment’s protection of “expressive activity” be applied to commercial transactions involving firearms?
For an in-depth look, view the complete video on Copper Jacket TV’s YouTube channel here.
