Dissent Excoriates Ninth Circuit Refusal of en banc Rehearing of Second Amendment

AmmoLand ^ | 17 September, 2020 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

The recent Ninth Circuit Second Amendment case, Mai v. United States,  shows the powerful influence President Trump has had on the largest Circuit Court in the United States.

The case started in Washington State. The plaintiff, Duy T. Mai, was involuntarily committed to a mental institution for depression and suicidal impulses when he was 17 years old. A few months later, he was released and went on to become a well adjusted, productive member of society. At age 37, he wished to exercise his Second Amendment right to purchase a firearm. He was unable to do so because of the involuntary commitment when he was 17. He applied to the State of Washington for relief from the disability, which was granted.

United States federal firearms law, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4), forbids Mai from purchasing or possessing a firearm. Mai sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming his Second Amendment rights were being illegally deprived.

The District Court in Washington State found that Mai did not have a case. Mai appealed to the Ninth Circuit. On 11 March, 2020, in a unanimous decision from the three-judge panel, the Ninth Circuit upheld the District Court decision.

Mai asked for an en banc review of his case. En banc reviews of Second Amendment cases seem to be routine for the Ninth Circuit, when the cases favor protecting Second Amendment rights.

This case, which had already ruled against Second Amendment protections, was, unsurprisingly, not granted an en banc review.

The surprising and positive event was eight judges dissented from the majority and believed an en banc review was called for. They dissented so strongly, they wrote and/or signed onto an extremely well argued, 29-page dissent.

The dissent is a powerful defense of the exercise of Second Amendment rights, and of Constitutional limitation of government power.

[AFB-XYZ]

I kind of thought something like that was the case, but wasn’t 100% sure. Your clarification makes perfect sense.
Many thanks, much obliged! :-)

[Alas Babylon!]

I reread it, and can't find good news.

Here it is again. Tell me what I'm missing:

The District Court in Washington State found that Mai did not have a case. Mai appealed to the Ninth Circuit. On 11 March, 2020, in a unanimous decision from the three-judge panel, the Ninth Circuit upheld the District Court decision.

Mai asked for an en banc review of his case. En banc reviews of Second Amendment cases seem to be routine for the Ninth Circuit, when the cases favor protecting Second Amendment rights.

This case, which had already ruled against Second Amendment protections, was, unsurprisingly, not granted an en banc review.

So because he was committed when 17, and the record was cleared by Washington state, the Court will not let him off the law, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4), which forbids Mai from purchasing or possessing a firearm. So he cannot own a firearm.

The courts said "No firearm for you".

[Manly Warrior]

Methinks cases such as this are to them(govt) a slippery slope leading to the end of the NFA,GCA,FOPA,Lautenberg etc. Excepting provision for prohibition of arms during periods of disqualification....no open ended permanent DQ unless incarcerated/committed to death....