The Ninth Circuit court is infamous as the circuit most overturned by the Supreme Court. It has been notoriously leftist in its decisions, often ignoring the law and Constitution in favor of progressive ideology. It has been particularly fervent in ignoring the Second Amendment, which is why the Court’s recent response to California’s gun rationing law is so unusual.

The law in question restricts Californians to buying only one handgun every 30 days. There is no evidence this restriction has ever contributed to public safety. How could it? If a criminal bought a handgun, but couldn’t buy a second for 30 days, that would somehow prevent them from using the first gun in crimes?

The Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision has posed a significant obstacle for the kind of “gun safety” regulations states like California have imposed, particularly this portion of the decision:

When the  Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the  Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.” 

Unfortunately, states like California continue to crank out anti-liberty/gun laws, knowing it will take years to overturn them, and when they’re overturned, they’ll just rewrite them and start the process, and the waste of taxpayer dollars aimed at stealing their liberty, again. Surprisingly, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit recently gave California significant grief:

Graphic: X Screenshot

Jerry Wen, representing Attorney General Rob Bonta, first claimed that the reason for the gun rationing law was to "disrupt" gun trafficking and straw purchasing, but when Judge Bridget Bade asked if the state had any evidence that a 30-day wait between purchases actually does prevent illegal trafficking, Wen could only cite unnamed "some studies" and point to the fact that other states had previously adopted one-gun-a-month statutes. 

Wen then tried to argue that the right to purchase a firearm isn't protected in the text of the Second Amendment, but conceded that the Ninth Circuit has already concluded the right to purchase a firearm is an "ancillary" right. After all, if you don't have the right to acquire a firearm, then you can't keep or bear it. 

Why would an attorney argue against something the Ninth Circuit has already decided? Likely because in the pre-Bruen past, the Court was always willing to give lip service to the Constitution, but was equally willing to ignore it where guns were concerned. Now, they’re almost sounding like impartial, ethical judges:

Graphic: X Screenshot

Judge Danielle Forrest wondered if someone doesn't own any firearms, and it's impossible for them to legally purchase more than one at a time, how their core Second Amendment right to possess arms for self-defense wouldn't be implicated if they, for instance, wanted to have a gun in their primary residence and a vacation home, or one for their home and another for their business. 

Wen's response was that the individual in question could "borrow" a firearm until they were allowed under California law to purchase another; a circumstance that could only take place if the individual a) knows someone else who owns a handgun and b) is willing to part with it, even temporarily. 

California cities have always completely denied, or slow-walked concealed carry applications, frequently taking a year or longer to process them. Of course, the politically connected, people like former Senator Diane Feinstein, other politicians, or leftist actors, have always been able to go to the front of the line.

So, what is happening in the Ninth Circuit? Have these judges suddenly changed their fundamental, political policy beliefs?  Have they gone MAGA? Bruen certainly is largely responsible.

That Supreme Court decision made clear Americans have the individual right to keep and bear arms, not only in their homes, but in public, subject to limited restrictions based in history, the history of our republic at the time of the adoption of the Bill of Rights. If there was then no analogous restriction on Second Amendment rights, there can be no restriction today. Judges across the nation are writing hilarious opinions, disgusted with Bruen, but grudgingly obeying it. Some mostly obey it, but try to run around the margins to allow unconstitutional restrictions.

It appears at least this three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit realizes it might be too embarrassing to be reversed yet again when the law is so clear. That hasn’t stopped them in the past and California can ask for a hearing before every judge on the Court, which might yield a different decision. But for now, the Ninth Circuit is upholding the Second Amendment, which is a welcome, and long overdue, change.

Mike McDaniel is a USAF veteran, classically trained musician, Japanese and European fencer, life-long athlete, firearm instructor, retired police officer and high school and college English teacher. He is a published author and blogger. His home blog is Stately McDaniel Manor.