Posted on 05/17/2016 7:48:00 AM PDT by rktman
The plaintiffs in the case included three individuals who wanted to open a new gun store in Alameda County. They were joined by pro-Second Amendment groups: The Calguns Foundation, California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees, and the Second Amendment Foundation.
“Today, the Court appropriately reminded the County that civil rights can’t be outlawed through piles of regulation. We look forward to securing Second Amendment rights through this case and many others to come,” concluded Brandon Combs, executive director of The Calguns Foundation. “We’re very happy to see the Court take a very principled and reasoned approach to protecting the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms.”
Writing for the majority, Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain said that the “right of law-abiding citizens to keep and to bear arms is not a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees…”
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
I thought my coffee might have be spiked with LSD reading that headline myself.
I think some of the Judiciary is waking up to the “free for all” nature that exists in this country today. If they stand by and watch the Second Amendment changed how long will it be before the First Amendment could be changed.
This is great news. I expect that the “death by a thousand cuts” strategy being employed to restrict Second Amendment rights will be hard to get by the judiciary.
It is a horrible article, bloviating about the great victory rather than describing the ruling. It makes you want to throw a chair through the monitor, which does little with the demise of the cart.
In all likelihood it was a majority of two on a three judge panel and the loser will ask for a rehearing en banc
This is the second such ruling from the 9th circus. They must be watching the elections
I think they’re looking at recent rulings from the Supremes, and don’t want to get overturned again.
en banc?
A logical ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court.
Ninth Circuit Court? The Ninth Circus Court?
My God, I am going out to see if I can bag me one of them Flying Pigs.
We’ve clearly gone full inversion when the 9th ckt rules this way. Up *IS* down!
No. It was a 2-1 ruling.
See: COURT RULES THAT RIGHT TO BUY, SELL GUNS PROTECTED BY 2A IN SAF CASE
What’s funny is they never cared about getting over turned before. I wonder what gives
BELLEVUE, WA – A three-judge panel for the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a 2-1 ruling that “the right to purchase and sell firearms is part and parcel of the historically recognized right to keep and bear arms” protected by the Second Amendment in a case brought by the Second Amendment Foundation.
SAF was joined in the case by the California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees, the Calguns Foundation, Inc., and three businessmen, John Teixeira, Steve Nobriga and Gary Gamaza. SAF was represented by noted California civil rights attorney Don Kilmer, and the case was supported by an important amicus brief filed by Virginia attorney Alan Gura for the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Gura won both the Heller and McDonald Second Amendment rulings before the U.S. Supreme Court.
“This is an important decision,” said SAF founder and CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “It remands the case back to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with the ruling as it pertains to the Second Amendment.”
The lawsuit was against an Alameda County ordinance that prohibits gun stores from being located within 500 feet of a residential zone. Writing for the majority, Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain noted that, “the Ordinance burdened conduct protected by the Second Amendment and that it therefore must be subjected to heightened scrutiny—something beyond mere rational basis review.”
“Both SAF and CCRKBA can be proud of this victory,” Gottlieb stated. “We agree with Judge O’Scannlain’s explanation that ‘the county had failed to justify the burden it has placed on the right of law-abiding citizens to purchase guns. The Second Amendment,’ as the judge wrote, ‘requires something more rigorous than the unsubstantiated assertions offered to the district court.’”
Quoting the Supreme Court ruling in SAF’s 2010 landmark McDonald case, Judge O’Scannlain reiterated, “The right of law-abiding citizens to keep and to bear arms is not a ‘second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees that we have held to be incorporated into the Due Process Clause.’”
Our government, captured by progressives and leftists, have discovered “penumbras and emanations” that create rights for abortion, for women to play basketball at school, for government imposed racial quotas, for homosexuals to “marry” each other, and soon, for trans-genders to use any bathroom they wish.
but they are intent on eliminating the ONE clearly defined right specifically written into the Constitution.
This is the same ninth circus that ruled correctly in the Peruta case, but is now before an en banc panel for probable reversal.
Look for this one to go en banc as well.
There are actually a couple of sane justices left on the 9th, and if this wasn’t a fully empanelled court, there’s a slight chance that a bare majority might be sane.
Apparently only a 3 judge panel. 2-1 ruling. It’ll be back.
The judges who ruled in the majority were Reagan and Bush I appointees... both are in their 80’s.
Another reason to make sure that Hilary doesn’t become President. Both of these guys will be off the 9th Circuit in the next 8 years.
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.
