Posted on 10/29/2023 12:16:31 PM PDT by marktwain
On September 28, an en banc panel from the Ninth Circuit grabbed control of the Duncan v. Bonta. The magazine ban case in a stunning departure from the usual order of the court. It may or may not have violated the rules of the court. Several of the judges on the panel were not happy. Four judges of the eleven-judge panel dissented. Of particular interest was the dissent of Judge VanDyke.
The first part of the dissent explains how the abortion decision in Row v Wade and its follow-up decisions distorted court procedure and case law. It is used as an example of how poisonous special treatment of a political cause is. The history of the en banc panel by Judge VanDyke shows how opposition to the Second Amendment took priority over everything else. Below is most of the VanDyke dissent concerning the Second Amendment.
Cases involving the Second Amendment in our circuit have unfortunately suffered from a like phenomenon. And just as we should no longer distort our rules in abortion cases, we should no longer apply “different rules to different constitutional rights.” Whole Woman’s Health, 136 S. Ct. at 2321 (Thomas, J., dissenting). We should not give Second Amendment cases “special” treatment.
But the current irregularities highlighted by Judge Bumatay’s dissent are not the only way this case continues to demonstrate our court’s enduring bellicosity toward the Second Amendment. The irregularities in this case run much deeper— indeed, all the way back to when this case was first called
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
Typical ideological progressives. The end justifies all means.
The left realizes that they are the ones that the 2A was enacted to defend against. They are just not honest about it.
https://www.ammoland.com/2017/12/gun-control-is-in-progressivisms-dna/#axzz8FvNZ1uqe
At this point, maybe there should be gun control legislation applied to government agencies and agents.
It is not so far fetched. Originally, FBI agents were not allowed to be armed.
“FBI agents were not allowed to be armed.”
Now you’re talking!
Thanks for providing a direct link to the dissent itself. It’s only 9 pages.
My suspicion is, before cut and paste, long direct quotes were a lot of work and so not doing them became an ingrained habit.
I realize it is a slightly relevant subject to your link comment.
From a perspective of all that is good and true, the FBI has forfeited its right to own or carry any kind of weapon.
“...our court’s enduring bellicosity...”
Nice choice of wording.
Makes it sound like it’s a war....
Our Right’s are God given and I don’t need permission from politicians to exercise them!
Why is it so damn hard for people to understand that allowing others to deem what you can or can’t own for your protection will one day Own you!?
If...
The judges are violating the constitution...
If...
The judges violated the rule of law with their decisions...
Then..
It’s up to the judicial committee in the house of representatives to censure or impeach the anti constitutional judges.
Why is this not being done?
Few of these morons even know what a magazine is.
I think what is confusing here is it reads as if VanDyke and Bumatay are anti-Second Amendment but it is actually the opposite.
I strongly believe and argue with anyone that the Founding Fathers meant to say that self-defense and the means to provide it through firearms was an inalienable right granted by the Creator, and they used the 2nd Amendment to codify that so no further government or despots could take that right from us.
So to that end, Mark, I believe VanDyke and Bumatay are the good guys, or did I read the linked full document wrong?
Certain members of the FBI (more than a handful) have violated their oaths and committed crimes.
They need to be charged, found guilty and imprisoned for whatever amount of time the US Code warrants for such corruption in high officials.
See my tagline...
"Dissent in Ninth Circuit Magazine Ban Shows Rogue Judges Ignore Constitution"
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
Regarding Duncan v. Bonta, rogue judges are not the main problem with our 2nd Amendment (2A) protections imo.
The main problem is that we've got a corrupt, anti-2nd Amendment Congress that is stubbornly not doing its duty to make 14th Amendment (14A)-based federal laws that discourage the states from abridging constitutionally enumerated rights, our 2nd Amendment protections in this example.
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
"Section 5: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
In fact, the congressional record shows that when Rep. John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 above, read the Bill of Rights as main examples of constitutionally enumerated protections that 14A applies to the states, he included 2A.
“See 2nd Amendment (Article II) about middle of 2nd column.” — John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe
Also, the Supreme Court had put it this way about Congress's 14A legislative power to strengthen our constitutionally enumerated rights Minor v. Happersett.
“3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnished an additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphasis added].” —Minor v. Happersett, 1874.
But more importantly, 14A is still alive and kicking, even in California, evidenced by UC Berkeley losing a freedom of speech lawsuit awhile back.
UC Berkeley settles landmark free speech lawsuit, will pay $70,000 to conservative group (12.4.18)
On the other hand, I suspect that California taxpayers ultimately ended up paying settlement, effectively nullifying one of the reasons that 14A was drafted imo.
The remedy for the bad decision of the judges' anti-2A decision imo is this. Democratic and Republican Trump-supporting patriots need to support hopeful Trump 47 by electing a new patriot Congress that is willing to do its 14A duty to make laws that discourage the states from abridging constitutionally enumerated protections, 2A in this example.
So patriots need to get ready ASAP to primary ALL federal lawmakers up for reelection in 2024, except for MTG, Gaetz & Company, Jordan, (and others?), replacing them with Trump-endorsed candidates who will make it difficult for the states to abridge constitutionally enumerate protections.
You are correct. VanDyke and Bumatay are the good guys.
The rogue judges are not the main problem.
The main problem is the ideology of Progressivism (lately morphed in wokeism, cultural, Marxism, Post Modernism, Radical Feminism and other manifestations of a Marxian view of reality.
Progressivism et al are ideologically wedded to the use of state power to change man's nature.
They view mankind as infinitely malleable. All they need is enough power in the hands of the state.
Every attempt fails spectacularly. The more power they grab, the more spectacular the failure.
They do not care. It is a "secular" religion.
Democrats [and RINOs] Are Terrified Of An Educated And Informed Public (3.12.23)
Leftists have no regard for the Constitution. They are constantly passing laws that limit a person’s 2A rights, ignoring recent SC rulings that prohibit such laws.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.