PA Bill Number: HB1472
Title: In primary and election expenses, further providing for reporting by candidate and political committees and other persons and for late contributions ...
Description: In primary and election expenses, further providing for reporting by candidate and political committees and other persons and for late contrib ...
Last Action: Referred to STATE GOVERNMENT
Last Action Date: Apr 22, 2024
Elections Matter: How CA Rifle Case Win Could Have Huge Ripple Effect :: 05/17/2022
When a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals struck down California’s law prohibiting sales of semiautomatic rifles to young adults ages 18-20, it not only signaled a victory for gun rights groups but also underscored the importance of who occupies the oval office.
The case, known as Jones v. Bonta, was brought by a coalition including the Second Amendment Foundation, Calguns Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation, Poway Weapons and Gear and PWG Range, North County Shooting Center, Inc, Beebe Family Arms and Munitions, and three private citizens including Matthew Jones for whom the case is named.
The three-judge panel consisted of federal Judges Ryan Nelson and Kenneth Lee, both Donald Trump appointees, and visiting Judge Sidney Stein from the Southern District of New York, a Bill Clinton appointee. During his four years in office, the one thing Trump did that will seal his legacy was to fill as many vacancies on the federal courts as possible with conservative judges and Supreme Court justices.
Trump appointees—especially in the traditionally liberal Ninth Circuit—appear to have a welcome perspective and understanding of the Second Amendment’s protection of the individual right to keep and bear arms, according to gun rights activists. The Jones ruling, which is likely to now be pushed into an en banc review by a full panel as are virtually all other pro-Second Amendment decisions in that circuit, offers more proof that Trump’s court choices were good ones.
There is another important angle to the Jones ruling, alluded to in the Second Amendment Foundation’s news release, published by Ammoland News following the court action, and it is the impact this decision could have on another federal case out of Washington State.
After voters in Washington approved a well-financed initiative (bankrolled by the billionaire-backed Alliance for Gun Responsibility, a Seattle-based gun prohibition lobbying organization) in 2018 that added several restrictions to ownership of semi-auto sport/utility rifles, SAF and the National Rifle Association, two Evergreen State gun dealers and three private citizens filed suit.
One of the onerous restrictions included in Initiative 1639 was a prohibition on the purchase of “semiautomatic assault rifles” by anyone in the 18-20-year age group. The Jones v. Bonta ruling could easily throw water on that part of the initiative, and Seattle anti-gunners are not happy. Washington is part of the Ninth Circuit.
SAF attorney Joel Ard of Seattle quickly brought this development to the attention of the Appeals Court clerk in a letter dated May 12. In that letter, he referred to language in the Jones ruling, stating “For these reasons and all those set out in Appellants’ Brief, this Court should reverse the District Court.”
As noted in the 70-page majority opinion authored by Judge Nelson, “…the historical record shows that the Second Amendment protects young adults’ right to keep and bear arms.”
A few pages later, Judge Nelson added, “Here, our historical analysis leads us to conclude that young adults have a Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Because that right includes the right to purchase arms, both California laws burden conduct within the scope of the Second Amendment.”
According to the Associated Press and Seattle Times, UCLA law professor Adam Winkler believes this ruling is a signal the federal courts are ready to expand gun rights.
“Federal judges can read the tea leaves,” Winkler observed. “In the coming years, the courts seem certain to strike down numerous gun safety measures in the name of the 2nd Amendment. This 9th Circuit ruling is a harbinger of things to come.”
If Winkler is correct, the gun control movement in this country is in serious—and unavoidable—trouble.
The Washington case that could be immediately affected, known as Mitchell v. Atkins, was filed initially naming Attorney General Bob Ferguson as a defendant, but it was subsequently amended to let Ferguson out of the case.
There was some amusement for the plaintiffs at the time when it was erroneously reported the case had been withdrawn, with a spokesperson for the gun control lobby declaring victory. But SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb got the last laugh when he immediately issued a bristling correction, in which he stated, “We definitely have not dropped our lawsuit, despite a gloating news release from the Alliance for Gun Responsibility that claimed we voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit. We haven’t dismissed anything. I don’t know why the Alliance put a release out. It’s sloppy on their part, and seems only designed to discourage our members and supporters.
“Pardon the pun, but they obviously jumped the gun,” he said at the time.
Reacting to the Jones ruling, Gottlieb said he was not only “delighted” with the outcome, but also that Judge Nelson applied strict scrutiny, which is an awfully high barrier for anti-gunners to breach in their efforts to erode Second Amendment rights. The judge focused on this issue in his ruling.
“The dissent’s second rationale is that California’s ban does not impose a severe burden because young adults can just wait to buy semiautomatic rifles until they are 21,” Judge Nelson observed. “It’s true that we’ve applied intermediate scrutiny to a ten-day waiting period. But telling young adults to wait up to three years is a much more severe burden than having to wait a week and a half. We are not aware of any precedent that has adopted the dissent’s rationale. Indeed, telling an 18-year-old that he can vote when he turns 21 would hardly minimize the existing constitutional deprivation.”
In his concurring opinion, Judge Lee led with an observation that cuts to the heart of the California ban, and arguably the one in the Washington state case.
“I join the opinion in full but write separately to highlight how California’s legal position has no logical stopping point and would ultimately erode fundamental rights enumerated in our Constitution,” Judge Lee reasoned. “Simply put, we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable.”
Translation: Rights are special, and they cannot be simply ignored just because they get in the way.
A few paragraphs later, Judge Lee added, “If California can deny the Second Amendment right to young adults based on their group’s disproportionate involvement in violent crimes, then the government can deny that right—as well as other rights—to other groups.”
It is a dilemma advocates for all manner of regulations will ultimately face, because at some point, the regulatory demon will be on their doorstep.
