Notwithstanding the protection California can expect to get from the anti-gun, anti-human, anti-liberty US 9th District Court of Appeals, Gun groups and individuals are continuing their pursuit of suing California over its draconian anti-gun, anti-self-defense laws.
But even when one Second Amendment group brought their case to the Supreme Court, California decided it wouldn’t respond. Tee Supreme Court has ordered the state to respond by October 24th, 2017.
SPONSORIf you like this content, be sure you click here and support iState's ability to deliver to you news for the iStater, the state of one.
What’s at stake is the ruling by the 9th circuit that overthrew a judgment by a trial court, a judgment that had reigned in some of California’s gun control laws. The 9th circuit, in particular, has ruled that outlawing gun sales is not an infringement on the second amendment. It’s legal for you to own guns, in other words, but good luck buying them.
A Second Amendment lawsuit out of California is drawing attention at the Supreme Court and support from multiple groups, said gun rights group The Calguns Foundation, which joined Second Amendment Foundation and two individuals on a petition in September seeking the Court’s review of a Ninth Circuit ruling that upheld the state’s 10-day waiting period laws when they are enforced against law-abiding gun owners after they pass a rigorous background check.
Last month, the respondent California Attorney General Xavier Becerra waived his right to reply to the petition.
But on September 29 the Supreme Court ordered the State to reply; on October 24, the Court granted the State of California an extension of time to file that reply, making the new deadline December 1.
Adding support for the case, multiple briefs have been filed in support of the petitioners, encouraging the Supreme Court to grant review and overturn the Ninth Circuit’s ruling.
In a brief authored by preeminent constitutional scholars Ilya Shapiro and Trevor Burrus, the Washington, D.C.-based think tank Cato Institute presented a strong case for the Court to grant certiorari. The brief argues, among other things, that intermediate scrutiny “means something different in almost every circuit [court of appeal] when applied to the Second Amendment” and that the Ninth Circuit “abused petitioners’ fundamental rights by misapplying intermediate scrutiny.”
And in another brief, former California Deputy Attorney General Raymond M. DiGuiseppe argued on behalf of a coalition of Second Amendment advocacy groups—including Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation, Gun Owners of California, and Madison Society Foundation—that Supreme Court review is necessary in this case “to reestablish the rule of law and halt the trend of judicial obstructionism” that is “jeopardizing” the constitutional protections of the Second Amendment.
“This is not the first time the Ninth Circuit has played ‘fast and loose’ with the Court’s Second Amendment jurisprudence to fend off constitutional claims – nor will it be the last if this Court does not step in,” the brief said.
Attorneys Douglas A. Applegate and George M. Lee of the San Francisco-based law firm Seiler Epstein Ziegler & Applegate LLP filed a brief for the Crime Prevention Research Center, a research and education organization led by the renowned economist Dr. John Lott, arguing that “the standards applied by the lower courts vary widely” and that “the Ninth Circuit reversed the evidentiary findings of the trial court and supplanted the evidence that the trial court received and weighed with its own non-empirical views of what it thought was reasonable.”
“We are pleased that other groups have recognized the serious flaws in the Ninth Circuit’s approach,” explained Erik S. Jaffe, the petitioners’ Supreme Court counsel. “The results-driven analysis in the opinion below not only does violence to the Second Amendment, but does violence to the rule of law and respect for the courts. We are hopeful that the Justices, whatever their views on the scope of the Second Amendment, will recognize that the decision below is well out of bounds of any reasonable reading of Supreme Court precedent or standards for intermediate scrutiny and will take the necessary steps to ensure the fair administration of justice in Second Amendment cases.”