9th Circuit rejects challenge to California gun show ban

mercury news ^ | February 18, 2003

[Indy Pendance]

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel reluctantly upheld a local California ordinance banning weapons bazaars on government property Tuesday, saying it was bound by precedent.

In dismissing a challenge to an Alameda County ordinance, the three-judge panel ruled that gun enthusiasts had neither a First Amendment nor a Second Amendment right to possess weapons for sale on county property.

[Commander8]

Welcome to the Soviet Socialist Republic of Kalifornia.

[marktwain]

Several other courts in other states (Texas comes to mind) have ruled that it violates 1st amendment rights as well.

[Indy Pendance]

That's what I got out of the article. The 9th had no choice. Amazing considering their history.

[John Jorsett]

Considering that the 9th is overturned more than it's upheld, this is probably a good sign.

[Atchafalaya]

Question? If the en banc 9th upholds the 9th panel's decision that the 2nd is NOT an individual right, does that trump the 5th's decision that is it IS an individual right. If not then what; if so then what?

[The Toad]

I've always enjoyed the (non-logical) "precedent" argument. I've never had an attorney who was able to logically explain the importance of "precedent". What if the "precedent" is incorrect or wrong?

[RicocheT]

"weapons bazaars"

Gun haters dream up nasty sounding names for what they want to ban, Saturday night special, sniper rifles, assault rifles and high capacity magazines--weapons bazaars joins the list.

[Indy Pendance]

Wait until they start calling them weapons of mass destruction.....

[mark the shark]

Let's see them try to confiscate my guns! I would pay good money to see that day come in my neighborhood. The only good thing about the ruling is that it will force a full panel to look at the case.

[Iconoclast2]

It's a good sign if it puts at least two Ninth Circuit judges on record as supporting the plain meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

[Paleo Conservative]

It's a good sign if it puts at least two Ninth Circuit judges on record as supporting the plain meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

I smell a SCOTUS reversal.

[twntaipan]

The 9th Circus Court of Appeals is always good for a chuckle!

[NovemberCharlie]

Question? If the en banc 9th upholds the 9th panel's decision that the 2nd is NOT an individual right, does that trump the 5th's decision that is it IS an individual right?

No, each decision is binding within its own circuit, but next time the issue comes up, SCOTUS is likely to take up the case to resolve the discrepancy.

[mvpel]

I'm rather amazed that the AP quoted Chuck Michel, who wasn't even a named party to the case but merely drafted amicus briefs, and didn't quote Don Kilmer, the guy who actually argued and briefed the case.

And the AP's suggestion that this panel considers the Hickman ruling "perhaps" flawed is a little strange, considering these quotes:

I conclude that an “individual rights view” of the Second Amendment is most consistent with the Second Amendment’s language, structure, and purposes, as well as colonial experience and pre-adoption history.

Limiting the Second Amendment’s protection to collective rights of militias affronts the most basic protections of the Second Amendment.

...and so on. I don't think that leaves much room for doubt as to whether they consider Hickman flawed.

Don Kilmer is the president of California Citizens for Self Defense, working to put the right to keep and bear arms into the California Constitution.

[45Auto]

"Gould, appointed by President Clinton, added that under the circuit's own precedent, ``a general confiscation of guns could become the order of the day.''

That's a very interesting statement by one of the guys from the infamous 9th Circuit;I would like to think that there is hope for the correct view to prevail, even at the 9th Circus. But I still don't trust those black-robed vultures. A general confiscation order would be met by considerable resistance, contrary to the opinions of some Freepers. It would either be the end of the Republic, or the end of the damn gun-grabbers, both in and out of office.