California is challenging Chicago and New York for the murder and violence capitol of the nation. Like Chicago and New York, California does not like people defending themselves, while government defunds the police, financially threaten law enforcement agents—and government officially calls police officers racists and bigots regardless of color.
“A Ninth Circuit panel on Thursday took up a challenge to California’s restrictions on openly carrying a firearm in public in the wake of the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision that a New York prohibition on carrying guns in public violated the Second Amendment.
U.S. Circuit Judges Lawrence VanDyk and Kenneth Lee, both Donald Trump appointees, seemed reluctant to issue a sweeping injunction of the two California criminal statutes that the plaintiffs claim violate their constitutional rights. Instead, their comments suggested that they were more inclined to send the case back to the federal judge in Sacramento who had declined to halt enforcement of the state laws during litigation.
You read that right—the State of California and, so far, the 9th Circuit, are refusing to obey the decisions of the Supreme Court. How many people have to die before we are allowed to protect ourselves in California?
Ninth Circuit wary of blocking California open-carry ban
Not having heard from the state about historical support for the ban, a panel of two Trump appointees appeared to be in no rush to throw out California’s restrictions on openly carrying guns in public.
Courthousenews, 6/29/23
U.S. Circuit Judges Lawrence VanDyk and Kenneth Lee, both Donald Trump appointees, seemed reluctant to issue a sweeping injunction of the two California criminal statutes that the plaintiffs claim violate their constitutional rights. Instead, their comments suggested that they were more inclined to send the case back to the federal judge in Sacramento who had declined to halt enforcement of the state laws during litigation.
The third judge on the panel, Senior U.S. Circuit Judge N. Randy Smith, a George W. Bush appointee, wasn’t present at the oral argument due to a family emergency but would participate in the court’s decision, Lee said at the start of the hearing.
The two appellate judges seemed bemused by the analysis of Chief U.S. District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller who, in refusing to issue a preliminary injunction, didn’t consider whether any side was more likely to succeed on the merits of the case. Instead, Mueller based her decision on the observation that the plaintiffs, two residents of rural Northern California counties, could carry concealed guns if they were worried about defending themselves in public while the lawsuit is pending.
Lee said he had never seen an opinion, particularly involving a constitutional question, where a judge simply skipped over the first factor, the likelihood of success, of the so-called Winter test that courts use to decide whether to issue a preliminary injunction at the outset of a lawsuit challenging a law or regulation.
“It’s just odd to do that,” Lee said, comparing the judge’s analysis to talking about the New England Patriots dynasty without ever mentioning Tom Brady.
The plaintiffs’ attorney Amy Bellantoni made little headway in trying to persuade the panel to issue a permanent injunction because, as she argued, the issues are very straightforward given the Supreme Court ruling in Bruen.
“Bruen has put this issue to rest,” Bellantoni said. “Bruen was a public carry case.”
That argument was a little too hasty for the judges, however, because Bruen requires that gun laws be evaluated by looking at the “historical tradition of firearm regulation” and that hasn’t happened yet in this case, VanDyk said.
“What Bruen said is that you look at the historical evidence,” VanDyk said. “Why shouldn’t the state have an opportunity to provide that historical evidence? I think you’d agree that the court doesn’t just have to take your word for it that it doesn’t exist.”
Mica Moore, a lawyer with the California Attorney General’s Office, told the judges that the state is preparing the needed historical record in support of the state’s laws in preparation for a motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit, which presumably could lead to a decision on the merits.
“We have been developing the historical evidence as to restrictions on open carry,” Moore said. “We are near the close of expert discovery and we plan to make a historical case at summary judgment.”
Mueller’s hearing on summary judgment could be as soon as September, according to Moore.
