Hi Mark.
I don't see the 9th Circus upholding a pro-Second Amendment ruling.
It's akin to believing the 9th Circus would uphold a pro-life ruling.
Not going to happen.
The question is, when the 9th strikes this ruling down, will the cowardly Supreme Court actually take a 2nd Amendment case?
The court did agree to hear a case in January filed by the New York Rifle & Pistol Association - the first time in 8 years that they actually permitted one on the 2nd Amendment.
A year ago, Justice Thomas finally spoke out:
Thomas, conservatives impatient at Supreme Court's inaction on 2nd Amendment
But here is what the public really does not understand. The Supreme Court doesn't hear cases, and then the justices retreat to their chambers, think about the Constitution and the law, and come back have a straight vote.
Oh no.
The make deals in back rooms. They legislate. They act like a Super Government. The make decisions based on selfish desires and for raw power.
The inside story of how John Roberts negotiated to save Obamacare
Roberts' moves behind the scenes were as extraordinary as his ruling. He changed course multiple times. He was part of the majority of justices who initially voted in a private conference to strike down the individual insurance mandate -- the heart of the law -- but he also voted to uphold an expansion of Medicaid for people near the poverty line. Two months later, Roberts had shifted on both......After an unusual three full days of oral arguments in late March 2012 (a typical case gets one hour on one day), the nine justices gathered in a private conference room off the chief's chambers to cast initial votes. They were alone, with no law clerks or administrative staff......Roberts did not want the entire law to fall......Soon after, Roberts began trying to persuade Kennedy to find that the unconstitutional insurance requirement could be severed from the rest of the law. But Kennedy -- often a swing vote on high-profile cases -- was firm in his position. He was puzzled, and then put off, by Roberts' view that the ACA provisions could be severed.....Later in April, Roberts tried another path. He began exploring whether, as the Obama administration had argued, the individual mandate could be upheld as a tax. (CBS's Jan Crawford reported earlier on Roberts' reversal on the mandate, but the full story of Roberts' switch, including on Medicaid expansion, and the changed votes of two liberal justices is detailed now for the first time.) The chief justice then turned to Breyer and Kagan, the liberals most likely to work with him on contentious issues, to see if they could find common ground.....Scalia and the other conservatives were livid at the development. Scalia believed the taxing-power possibility had never truly been discussed in court, calling it a "fly-by-night briefing." Kennedy thought Roberts had presented his interpretation as "judicial modesty," when it amounted instead "to a vast judicial overreaching."