Posted on 01/25/2022 6:32:55 AM PST by rktman
As a rule, few things are less likely to be the source of humor than court decisions. Sometimes there are excellent puns or low-key snark, but you don’t find belly-laugh material. Usually.
Last Friday, a panel of the Ninth Circuit published a decision on a complaint arising from Ventura, California, that covered both the COVID panic and the Second Amendment. During the height of the COVID panic, that county ordered firing ranges, and gun shops closed. Presumably, this is because the Wuhan virus has a particular affinity for recreational venues. Several groups and individuals sued to overturn the order as it targeted an enumerated right under the U.S. Constitution.
The panel considering the case consisted of Judges Andrew Kleinfield (George W. Bush), Ryan Cooper (Donald Trump), and Lawrence VanDyke (Donald Trump). They concluded in a relatively straightforward manner that because the Second Amendment is a guaranteed right, any regulation must pass a “strict scrutiny” standard regardless of what the public health nazis wished to impose.
(Excerpt) Read more at redstate.com ...
Why do you excerpt a site that isn’t on the Excerpt List?
Ninth Circuit Trump Appointed Judge Lampoons His Entire Circuit Over Its Treatment of the Second Amendment
By streiff | Jan 24, 2022 11:30 AM ET
AP Photo/Wilson Ring
As a rule, few things are less likely to be the source of humor than court decisions. Sometimes there are excellent puns or low-key snark, but you don’t find belly-laugh material. Usually.
Last Friday, a panel of the Ninth Circuit published a decision on a complaint arising from Ventura, California, that covered both the COVID panic and the Second Amendment. During the height of the COVID panic, that county ordered firing ranges, and gun shops closed. Presumably, this is because the Wuhan virus has a particular affinity for recreational venues. Several groups and individuals sued to overturn the order as it targeted an enumerated right under the U.S. Constitution.
The panel considering the case consisted of Judges Andrew Kleinfield (George W. Bush), Ryan Cooper (Donald Trump), and Lawrence VanDyke (Donald Trump). They concluded in a relatively straightforward manner that because the Second Amendment is a guaranteed right, any regulation must pass a “strict scrutiny” standard regardless of what the public health nazis wished to impose.
The only document the County pointed to as justification was the edict itself, in which its Health Officer recited in the “Whereas” clauses that “social isolation is considered useful” for this purpose. The County provided no evidence and no justification for why bicycles could be purchased and delivered, for example, but firearms could not even be picked up at the storefront, or for why such outdoor activities as walking, bicycling, and golfing were allowed, but acquiring and maintaining proficiency at outdoor shooting ranges was not. The County has simply neglected to make a record that could justify its actions. Neither pandemic nor even war wipes away the Constitution.
In fact, the panel also concluded that in addition to failing “strict scrutiny,” the Ventura rule could not meet any known standard of scrutiny. Good news, right?
Except the Ninth Circuit is notorious for the way it treats the Second Amendment as some sort of red-haired step-child of Constitutional right. As a result, one is hard-pressed to find a case where a pro-Second Amendment decision has survived an en banc review. For instance, in 2018, a Ninth Circuit panel consisting of Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain (Ronald Reagan), Richard R. Clifton (George W. Bush), and Sandra S. Ikuta (George W. Bush) ruled that a Hawaii law that limited the right to possess weapons to the confines of one’s own home was overly restrictive (ya think?). Yet, in March 2021, the entire Ninth Circuit ruled that the Hawaii law was totes okay, contrary to Supreme Court precedent.
After disposing of the actual case under consideration, Judge VanDyke went on to skewer his own Circuit over its consistent “results-oriented” Second Amendment jurisprudence. This is from his concurrence.
I agree wholeheartedly with the majority opinion, which is not terribly surprising since I wrote it. But I write separately to make two additional points. The first is simply to predict what happens next. I’m not a prophet, but since this panel just enforced the Second Amendment, and this is the Ninth Circuit, this ruling will almost certainly face an en banc challenge. This prediction follows from the fact that this is always what happens when a three-judge panel upholds the Second Amendment in this circuit. See, e.g., Young v. Hawaii, 896 F.3d 1044, 1048 (9th Cir. 2018), on reh’g en banc, 992 F.3d 765 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc) (overturning the three-judge panel); Peruta v. Cnty. of San Diego, 742 F.3d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 2014), on reh’g en banc, 824 F.3d 919 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (same); Duncan v. Becerra, 970 F.3d 1133, 1138 (9th Cir. 2020), on reh’g en banc sub nom. Duncan v. Bonta, 19 F.4th 1087 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc) (same). Our circuit has ruled on dozens of Second Amendment cases, and without fail has ultimately blessed every gun regulation challenged, so we shouldn’t expect anything less here. See Duncan, 19 F.4th at 1165 (VanDyke, J., dissenting).
My second point is related to the first. As I’ve recently explained, our circuit can uphold any and every gun regulation because our current Second Amendment framework is exceptionally malleable and essentially equates to rational basis review. See id. at 1162–63; Mai v. United States, 974 F.3d 1082, 1101 (9th Cir. 2020) (VanDyke, J., dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc) (“Particularly in [the Second Amendment] context, we have watered down the ‘reasonable fit’ prong of intermediate scrutiny to little more than rational basis review.”). Our court normally refers to our legal test as a two-step inquiry, see United States v. Chovan, 735 F.3d 1127, 1136 (9th Cir. 2013), although it may be better understood as a “tripartite binary test with a sliding scale and a reasonable fit”—a test that “only a law professor can appreciate.” Rhode v. Becerra, 445 F. Supp. 3d 902, 930 (S.D. Cal. 2020). The complex weave of multi-prong analyses embedded into this framework provide numerous off-ramps for judges to uphold any gun-regulation in question without hardly breaking a sweat. See Duncan, 19 F.4th at 1164–65 (VanDyke, J., dissenting).
Given both of these realities—that (1) no firearm-related ban or regulation ever ultimately fails our circuit’s Second Amendment review, and (2) that review is effectively standardless and imposes no burden on the government—it occurred to me that I might demonstrate the latter while assisting my hard-working colleagues with the former. Those who know our court well know that all of our judges are very busy and that it’s a lot of work for any judge to call a panel decision en banc. A judge or group of judges must first write a call memo, and then, if the en banc call is successful, the en banc majority must write a new opinion. Since our court’s Second Amendment intermediate scrutiny standard can reach any result one desires, I figure there is no reason why I shouldn’t write an alternative draft opinion that will apply our test in a way more to the liking of the majority of our court. That way I can demonstrate just how easy it is to reach any desired conclusion under our current framework, and the majority of our court can get a jumpstart on calling this case en banc. Sort of a win-win for everyone. To better explain the reasoning and assumptions behind this type of analysis, my “alternative” draft below will contain footnotes that offer further elaboration (think of them as “thought-bubbles”). The path is well-worn, and in a few easy steps any firearms regulation, no matter how draconic, can earn this circuit’s stamp of approval.
Then Judge VanDyke goes on to write an opinion that the Ninth Circuit can use to overturn this ruling.
Like every locality in the United States, Ventura County was forced to rapidly respond to an unprecedented pandemic. As the death toll for its citizens continued to rise, the county temporarily closed firearm stores and firing ranges, but lessened, and then eventually withdrew, those restrictions when the pandemic allowed. Plaintiffs may disagree with Ventura County’s decisions, but it is not our job—now with the benefit of hindsight—to dictate what Orders we would have found best. Local officials “should not be subject to second-guessing by an ‘unelected federal judiciary,’ which lacks the background, competence, and expertise to assess public health and is not accountable to the people.” S. Bay United Pentecostal Church, 140 S. Ct. at 1614 (Roberts, C.J., concurring) (citation omitted).
For these reasons, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to state a claim.
You’re welcome.
And there is this hilarious footnote.
Again, it doesn’t matter much what we say here. Once we’re allowed to effectively balance competing interests under our Second Amendment intermediate scrutiny, it’s so easy justifying a regulation that we could easily just delegate this part of the opinion to our interns.
I don’t think there is much of a chance that Judge VanDyke will succeed in shaming the entire Circuit into leaving this decision alone, but I have to appreciate his style. These judges really don’t care about freedom or liberty. They exist to expand the power and reach of the administrative state. While it might not be possible to change what they rule, we should not act as though we are under any moral or ethical obligation to nod silently as they violate our rights. Instead, they need to be lampooned and ridiculed, and I hope Judge VanDyke makes it his personal cause to do just that.
streiff
Former infantry officer, CGSC grad and Army Operations Center alumnus.
RedState member since 2004. Follow me on Twitter.
“Neither pandemic nor even war wipes away the Constitution.”
Unless you’re Gulagged in a Deep Blue state.
Shoot, in a deep blue state you can wipe away the Constitution like, just with a cloth!
The 9th Circus is the most overturned Circuit in the Federal system.
It’s not just the 9th Circuit and 2nd amendment that are prone to this. Court action is by and large whimsical - any outcome the majority wants, can be had. All that is left to figure out is “what level of the court system gets this last word.”
SCOTUS, for decades, ignored Circuit Court rulings that DIRECTLY and EXPRESSLY misstated SCOTUS precedent. SCOTUS lets the Circuits do the dirty work, and by the magic of Heller, once a prohibition to the public becomes long standing, it becomes constitutional.
What makes the courts serious is they, in cahoots with the other overlords, can throw your ass in jail or kill you.
Morally and intellectually, they deserve way more ridicule than they get.
It doesn't matter where you are. This statement is false: "Neither pandemic nor even war wipes away the Constitution."
I suppose if you take "wipe away" to mean the words cease to exist, it is true. But NO right supposedly secured by the constitution is safe in the hands of the courts. The words will be interpreted in ways that favor whichever side the courts prefers to gfavor. There is no right to go to church, you can worship at home (pandemic definition of the practice of religion).
Pandemic, public health emergency, changes everything and reduces the public to chattle. This works every time. You will voluntarily do what you are told, or we will force you, and you will not get any remedy from the courts.
—> Why do you excerpt a site that isn’t on the Excerpt List?
I can’t speak for the OP, but here is why I do it:
1. The Fair Use Rules don’t give me the right to copy all the content, but only part
2. Just because a site hasn’t been upset in the past doesn’t mean the won’t be a Thorn in Jim’s after we copy a whole article. He has enough concerns.
3. Fairness prohibits me from taking the entire article and subverting the website’s original purpose in posting it
4. You can *always* click the link if you want to read more
5. FReepers rarely read all we post anyway
6. “Thou shall not steal.”
Again, after a lot of thought, this is where I ended up. I don’t care if anyone sees it differently. It’s how I have decided to roll. FYI.
I can’t speak for the OP, but here is why I do it:
***No comment on sending FReepers to clickbait sites, got it. No comment on malware, no comment on blogpimping. Got it.
1. The Fair Use Rules don’t give me the right to copy all the content, but only part
***Wrong. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes. https://michelsonip.com/basics-of-ip-blog-series-8-is-it-fair-use-or-infringement/?gclid=CjwKCAiA3L6PBhBvEiwAINlJ9OUbZ_l7_t2cS_Dvly02Eqpdd3EFGks62CgmH-LpvWTJL7M_GeBZ9xoCCsMQAvD_BwE
2. Just because a site hasn’t been upset in the past doesn’t mean the won’t be a Thorn in Jim’s after we copy a whole article. He has enough concerns.
***He’s got that wired. That’s why there’s an excerpt list.
3. Fairness prohibits me from taking the entire article and subverting the website’s original purpose in posting it
***The original purpose is clickbait, ads, malware, cookies, and anti-FReeperness. Fairness does not prohibit you from avoiding that crap.
4. You can *always* click the link if you want to read more
***Since you’re reiterating, so am I: clickbait, ads, malware, cookies, and anti-FReeperness.
5. FReepers rarely read all we post anyway
***Hollow justification for your laziness. When I do this checking on excerpts & posting the full article I see often that freepers thank me for doing it.
6. “Thou shall not steal.”
***”Not applicable”.
Again, after a lot of thought,
***Doesn’t look to me that you put a lot of thought into it. In fact it looks to me like you just use the auto-excerpt function, you’re bein’ lazy while sendin’ FReepers off FR to deal with clickbait, ads, malware, cookies, and anti-FReeperness.
this is where I ended up.
***You should put more thought into it.
I don’t care if anyone sees it differently.
***If ya don’t care then why bother responding to I wrote at all? You’re just trying to justify laziness.
It’s how I have decided to roll. FYI.
***Yeah, roll is a good term to use, like rollie-pollie because you’re upholding laziness as a virtue.
can throw your ass in jail or kill you.
***They don’t do their jobs otherwise. All of these bureaucracies have one thing on their mind: How to increase the amount of power they have.
General Copyright Statement:I'm pretty sure aMorePerfectUnion is closer to the intent of jimrob's policy than your stated preference.
Most of the sourced material posted to Free Republic is posted according to the "fair use" doctrine of copyright law for non-commercial news reporting, education and discussion purposes. We used to post full text of most articles so we could document history as it's being made, but more and more news agencies are now requesting us to post excerpts and links only to their material, and some are requesting that we post no material at all from their sites. We are complying with all such requests. Click here for the latest list of copyright requests. Please send takedown requests to: jimrob@psnw.com
I guess all you can is post every article yourself…
I’m ok with that.
I’ll excerp like always.
Fair use policy is usually about money and the willingness to use it. Free Republic was sued by LA Times and there was a settlement. There were and are libtard websites which post the full articles from LA Times and they never got sued. It wasn’t about fair use, it was about ideology with LA Times.
The intent of fair use was that legit authors wouldn’t get copied and folks sell their writings as their own.
Where I went to school, Kinko’s was started right there at the Quad in UCSB. Professors would publish their book and syllabus and sell it for $300, pocketing some extra cash because they forced their students to buy the book. Some students got together and would buy one print of the book and copy it at Kinko’s for all their collaborative educational brethren, circumventing that corrupt system with the legal fair use loophole which is applicable to Free Republic. From that same earlier link: educational institutions can use photocopies of copyrighted work for students enrolled in a class, so long as the copying is limited to:
...
An article from a periodical or newspaper.
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.