Posted on 09/19/2020 9:05:39 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
Such a strong dissent gives the Supremes a solid legal basis to grant cert.
Hold up.
If the District court said he didn’t have a case, and then the 3-Judge 9th said he didn’t have a case, and finally the entire 9th says he doesn’t have a case, how is this a help?
The dissent helps. The case is such an egregious abuse of power on the part of the Ninth Circuit, it practically begs to be overturned by SCOTUS.
With Ruth Bader Ginsburg no longer on the Supreme Court, and a new Trump appointment in the works... this could be big.
Actually, there are several cases waiting in the wings from the Ninth Circuit. This is one.
It’s the remarks by the Dissenting judges that reflects positive changes.
The vote’s number most likely very close. This is especially due to the conservative judges Pres Trump appointed.
The article is reminding folks of the importance of having Pres Trump kept in office; to give more conservative judges appointed.
If there’d been a few more conservative pro 2nd Amendment judges on the 9th Circuit they probably would have heard the case En Banc.
Why would patriots still have these protections?
Because the states have never expressly constitutional given the feds the specific powers to make laws regulating our basic rights, including making peacetime penal firearms laws, not even for murder.
”[…] our Constitution never conferred upon the Congress of the United States the power - sacred as life is, first as it is before all other rights which pertain to man on this side of the grave - to protect it in time of peace by the terrors of the penal code within organized states; and Congress has never attempted to do it. There never was a law upon the United States statute-book to punish the murderer for taking away in time of peace the life of the noblest, and the most unoffending, as well, of your citizens, within the limits of any State of the Union, The protection of the citizen in that respect was left to the respective States, and there the power is to-day.” —Rep. John Bingham, Congressional Globe, 1866. (See bottom half of third column.)
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
The problem is that US has evidently never completely shaken off its British Parliament way of thinking despite the Tea Party imo.
Send "Orange Man Bad" federal and state government desperate Democrats home in November!
Supporting PDJT with a new patriot Congress and state government leaders that will promise to fully support his already excellent work for MAGA and stopping SARS-CoV-2 will effectively give fast-working Trump a "third term" in office imo.
I don’t see any problem with voting Republican ticket for 2020 elections.
Insights welcome.
Good article. Headline is misleading, though, in that on its face, it seems to imply that the court has the power to “allow” the Second Amendment, or to take it away.
Very well written.
Can’t wait for a normal, US Constitution-abiding 9th.
Thanks for linking directly to the decision Dean. It is much appreciated.
A writer makes a choice: link directly to the sources used, or do not link directly to the sources used.
It takes a little more time to link, but it aids credibility considerably. More importantly, it aids in dissemination of the wider information.
Not linking is often viewed with skepticism about the information presented.
With these wondrous tools available, I link as much as practicable.
Trump needs to place a few more Judges on the 9th Circuit and flip it.
To do so, he must be re-elected.
What are you taking about? Only 3 judges on the 9th said said he didn't have a case. None of the dissenting judges on the 9th expressed that opinion.
It shows progress, from an entirely and vehemently anti-2A 9th circuit to one with a strong pro-2A minority in the space of a single 4 year presidential term.
The entire 9th saying he doesn't have a case shows progress? That view fails to recognize the faulty premise: The dissenting "strong pro-2A minority" in that case is part of the entire 9th but never said he didn't have a case, yet you accept the premise that the entire 9th says he doesn't have a case? Exercise of critical thought is not a crime, in most places.
Exactly. Many consider the right to bear arms among those inalienable rights with which we are endowed by our Creator, as alluded to in the Declaration of Independence. The right to bear arms does not spring or arise from 2A. Rather, 2A prohibits infringement of that inalienable right.
Absolutely agreed, and as I said, very much appreciated!
Unfortunately, the space for headlines is limited.
Originally, it would have said “of the exercise of Second Amendment rights.
It was truncated to “Second Amendment” for reasons of space.
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.