En Banc Duncan Decision = On To SCOTUS
Just like so many times in the past, the Ninth Circuit has left the 2A community scratching our heads and prepping an appeal to the Supreme Court. Today’s en banc decision upholds the state’s ban on magazines holding over 10 rounds over vigorous three judge dissent.
Judge Patrick J. Bumatay’s scathing dissent pointed out the panel’s misapplication of the new standard: “Bruen did two things: (1) it ended judicial interest balancing and (2) it provided a new framework for considering Second Amendment challenges. Despite this revolutionary change, things remain the same at the Ninth Circuit. Faithfully applying Bruen requires a course correction that the majority refuses to take. Instead, the majority just declares it knows better and charts its own path. But that disrespects the Supreme Court and the rule of law.”
“But the majority didn’t just butcher the Second Amendment and give a judicial middle finger to the Supreme Court. It also spurned statutory procedure for en banc proceedings. As explained in my dissent from the order filed concurrently with this opinion, this en banc court lacks statutory jurisdiction to decide this new appeal, years after it remanded the prior appeal to the district court,” added Judge Ryan Nelson.
Judge Lawrence VanDyke went so far as to record a video explaining his dissent from the majority. It’s well worth a watch, you can check it out here.
CRPA President & General Counsel Chuck Michel expressed disappointment regarding the outcome and resolve to continue the fight:
“This incorrect ruling is not surprising considering the inclination of many 9th Circuit judges to improperly limit the Second Amendment’s protections. We will seek review from the Supreme Court immediately. That Court has already vacated an incorrect ruling from the 9th Circuit in this case once, and we expect that the Justices will do that again. It is high time for the Supreme Court to reign in lower courts that are not following the Supreme Court’s mandates as laid out in the Heller and Bruen cases, and this case presents an opportunity for the High Court to do that emphatically.”
Instead of applying the Bruen standard properly, the majority in today’s decision embraced the state’s feeble argument that the magazines banned by the statute are not arms at all, but rather “accessories.” Sure, the state could not cite any historical analogs to the law as Bruen requires, but all that held little weight for the majority.
It is CRITICAL to support the work of CRPA and groups like the NRA as we push this case forward. As our President stated emphatically, we WILL continue this fight! We MUST have your help!