New From CRPA TV: More 9th Circuit Shenanigans
As the battle over how to apply the Bruen standard rages on nationally, it is perhaps not surprising to find that the Ninth Circuit remains, at least in large part, committed to expanding its reputation for concocting convoluted logic to reach anti-2A rulings. And we saw in recent weeks how procedural tricks can be used to tilt the playing field.
In the latest installment of CRPA TV, CRPA President & General Counsel Chuck Michel checks in to discuss the case of Baird v. Bonta, a challenge to California’s laws relating to open carry. While the case is not led by CRPA, it does point up the ongoing battle over the methodology courts should use in applying the Bruen standard.
Duncan, Rhode, Miller and many other pending cases provide an opportunity for judges (or panels of judges) to clarify that methodology in a manner consistent with the Bruen decision. Progressive judges, however, seek to weaken Bruen by purposefully misconstruing the most basic elements of the decision.
“The first step in applying Bruen is determining whether the text of the Second Amendment covers the conduct being restricted,” explains Michel. “In most of these cases it clearly does. To ‘keep’ means to ‘possess’, and ‘bear’ means to carry. From there, courts need to look for historical analogs to assess whether the Founding Fathers would have tolerated the kind of restriction being challenged.”
Still, as noted in the video, judges have made nonsensical claims such as declaring that magazines are not ‘arms’ and, therefore, are not even covered by the Second Amendment (and, hence, Bruen) in the first place.
Chuck also discusses the case of U.S. v. Rahimi, which will be argued before the Supreme Court in just a couple weeks, and the likelihood that gun control advocates will distract from the key legal issues at stake in the case in favor of bashing the quite unsympathetic subject of the case.
In short, the methodology is the key battle nationwide right now.