9th Circuit Rules States Can Ban Gun Sales

Executing linguistic gymnastics, the 9th circuit paves way for states to ban gun sales, even if they can’t ban gun possession

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in the US Judicial System has come out to declare that the 2nd Amendment, essentially, doesn’t apply to businesses.  In a ruling that seems to counter the Supreme Court’s decision that the 2nd Amendment is not a second-class right, the 9th circuit is now attempting to set a precedent that states need not restrict gun owners from owning guns, they can simply ban gun sales in the first place, including banning any business from selling to residents within the state.

This ruling demonstrates one of my oft-repeated phrases, there is no Rule of Law there is only Rule of Power.  There is no logical reason for assuming that the state should somehow be afforded the power to ban gun sales if it cannot also ban gun possession.  This is simply a demonstration of anti-gun, anti-liberty, government-worshipping, boot licking judges attempting to create, through the power of the ghosts inherent in language, a false legitimacy to allow their gods, the governments in their jurisdiction, to prevent human beings from having the tools to defend themselves.

I have no doubt one of the reasons why this gang of gov-sycophants is ruling the way they are ruing is in large part thanks to the realization that the legitimacy of the state as we know it is fast coming to an end and that, at some point, the coercive enterprise will need to take action to force compliance from a populace that is becoming increasingly aware that the cost to benefit ratio of coercive enterprises is fast becoming an impractical ratio.


From Ammoland

Last Tuesday, the (9th Circuit) court released a new decision in the case of Teixeira, et al. v. County of Alameda which held that “the Second Amendment does not independently protect a proprietor’s right to sell firearms.”

“It appears that the 9th Circuit may have finally achieved its goal of making the Second Amendment a right in-name-only,” said Brandon Combs, executive director of The Calguns Foundation. “The Supreme Court declared that the Second Amendment was not a second-class right, but lower courts are ignoring that and holding otherwise—and getting away with it.”

“If this case were about bookstores or abortion clinics, this wouldn’t even be a close call,” Combs explained. “We are cautiously optimistic that the high court will step back in and correct the direction of Second Amendment jurisprudence in the 9th Circuit very soon.”

“It’s hard to imagine the court getting this decision about gun stores more wrong,” said Donald Kilmer of San Jose, the plaintiffs’ attorney. “If there is no Second Amendment right to sell guns through a licensed firearms dealership, then the state government could effectively and simply end all access to firearms by extending the County’s ban statewide.”

“We are evaluating all options, but a petition to the Supreme Court to ask for their review [certiorari] in this case seems very likely,” Kilmer concluded.

“[This] decision perpetuates our continuing infringement on the fundamental right of gun owners enshrined in the Second Amendment….Our cases continue to slowly carve away the fundamental right to keep and bear arms,” said Circuit Judge Richard Tallman in a dissenting opinion. Tallman was appointed to the court by former president Bill Clinton in 1999.

About Paul Gordon 3009 Articles
Paul Gordon is the publisher and editor of iState.TV. He has published and edited newspapers, poetry magazines and online weekly magazines. He is the director of Social Cognito, an SEO/Web Marketing Company. You can reach Paul at pg@istate.tv