B.L.U.F. The 9th Circuit court is about to hear oral arguments on the California Unsafe Hand Gun act. Everybody wants to get their oar in the water, here is one such oar.
Peace Officers Research Association of California, The California State Sheriffs’ Association, The California Police Chiefs Association, The California Association of Highway Patrolmen, the California Reserve Peace Officers Association, that is who is filling this Amicus Curiae brief.
—Lance Boland v. Rob Bonta, No. 23-55276, slip op. at 1 (9th Cir.)
The first three pages are introductions of the different organizations.
Plaintiffs Are Likely to Succeed on The Merits
The injunction issued by the district court should be affirmed because the UHA’s 2006, 2007 and 2013 amendments violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The United States Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the appropriate standard for Second Amendment analysis in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022) stating as follows:
Wait? What? Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot? These groups representing a huge swath of law enforcement officers are advocating for gun rights, not gun infringements.
This is a little dense but some excellent points. First, they clarify that Bruen was affirming the standard set forth in Heller. This is not a new standard. It is the standard that has been in place since 2008. The fact that so many courts choose to ignore the standard put forth by the Supreme Court doesn’t make that standard “new” in 2022.
Next, they make a strong statement that relying case law developed on the two-step shuffle, prior to Bruen, is in correct.
Currently, two circuit courts have heard oral arguments on Second Amendment cases post Bruen. The 2nd Cir. and the 4th Cir. are deliberating. The question before the 4th Cir. is whether —Kolbe v. Hogan, 849 F. 3d 114 (4th Cir. 2017) is still good law.
The case —Dominic Bianchi v. Brian Frosh, No. 21-1255 (Court of Appeals) before the 4th Cir. was GVR’d from the Supreme Court. Bianchi v. Frosh was originally decided by the 4th Cir. in favor of the state, based on Kolbe v. Hogan. The state’s entire argument at the time was, “You already decided this in Kolbe“.
Here, the state is attempting to make the same type of argument. Can we still use Circuit Court opinions from before Bruen?
The answer should be a resounding and quick “NO!”. Any decision that was based on the two-step shuffle, means-end, is bad law post Bruen
The good guys, in this brief, flatly accuse the state of failing to meet their burden of proving history and tradition.
—#42 in Lance Boland v. Rob Bonta (9th Cir., 23-55276), No. 23-55276, slip op. at 7
The sarcasm is just dripping in that paragraph.
—id. at 7–8
It is a bit repetitive after this point. Part of the problem is that there are only so many ways to say “Bruen reaffirmed Heller, if the proposed conduct touches fingers with the Second Amendment, then that conduct is presumptively protected by the Second Amendment. The exceptions are if an arm is unusually dangerous AND unusual, or if the state can provide proof of historical regulations that are a good match for the proposed infringement.”
- Access to Modern Handguns is Presumptively Protected Under the Second Amendment.
- Appellant (bad guys) Has Failed to Identify Any Relevant Historic Analogues Which Limited Access to Modern Weapons.
- Gunpowder Storage Regulations Are Not an Analogue.
- Barrel Testing Regulations Are Not an Analogue.
One of our long-standing arguments is that the state and the courts treat the Second Amendment as a second class right. No other right is denigrated and shat upon as much as the Second. Here, the brief uses the words of the Bruen court to make this exact point.
—id. at 20–21
It is so disheartening to listen to the state attempt to steal our rights. They will twist every word, looking for even one small gap in the wording to justify their abhorrent behavior.
When you are forced to watch the Col. of the Maryland State Police, sit in front and testify how all the infringements wanted are what they want too, you cringe. Because that worm is lying. His introduction says he is representing some voluntary membership group, while his uniform says that he is representing The Police.
These groups make the claim that they represent real law enforcement officers within the state of California. I have no reason to doubt them.
Today, they stood up with us.