9th Circuit: You Can OWN Guns But Have No Inherent Right To BUY Guns

The 9th Circuit is the most ridiculed appellate court in the nation for good reason and it is no surprise that their rulings, when appealed to the Supreme Court, almost always get overturned (to the tune of 80% of the time).

This recent verdict in the case of John Teixeira CalGuns, Second Amendment Foundation, California Association of Federal Firearm Licencees vs the County of Almeda is one of those rulings that will almost surely get vacated once the Supreme Court gets the case.

The case basically breaks down to the fact that the County of Alameda can enact an end around gun control policy by not allowing any firearm businesses to be conducted in the county.  One could understand why the Cal-FFL had gotten involved in this en banc lawsuit.

This case was pretty straightforward and the opinion handed down by the court was as straight forward as it was absurd.  Basically the court ruled that letting the county of Alameda ban sales of firearms didn’t matter because Californians could go to another county to buy firearms.

Accordingly, he (Teixeira) has failed to state a claim for relief based on
infringement of the Second Amendment rights of his potential
customers. And, we are convinced, Teixeira cannot state a
Second Amendment claim based solely on the ordinance’s
restriction on his ability to sell firearms. A textual and
historical analysis of the Second Amendment demonstrates
that the Constitution does not confer a freestanding right on
commercial proprietors to sell firearms. Alameda County’s
zoning ordinance thus survives constitutional scrutiny.

I have emboldened some parts of that in order to break down.

The first part dealing with his customers rights being infringed.  As I stated before, the opinion of the court is that as long as one county in the state allows the sale of firearms the citizens of Alameda are not deprived their rights.  California is a big state and if San Diego county were to be the only county that allowed the sale of firearms it would take a citizen of Alameda almost 9 hours of drive time in order to buy a gun.  Let alone the 12 hours and nearly 800 miles someone from Modoc Country California would have to drive.

Furthermore, this type of rationale by the courts being applied to the 13th Amendment would allow slavery in the United States, so long as some small part of each state remained free of slaves.

The second emboldened part that talks about Teixeira stating a claim is as fraught with hypocrisy as can be found.  When applied to the First Amendment that would be as if the 9th Circuit ruled that freedom of the press was fine…but no one was allowed to sell printing presses.  Or beyond that were not allowed to sell newspapers.  I highly doubt the radically progressive judges of the 9th Circuit would like to give up their WashPo and New York Times.

The final part reiterates what I just said.  The 9th Circuit does not think the 2nd Amendment protects the commerce of firearms.  This is one of the most blatant judicial activist gun control grabs I have seen in a while.  I shouldn’t be surprised that it comes from California, the state that banned lead ammunition.

Again, this is what activist judges like to do.  Foist their own personal bias on a case.  Most of the judges on the 9th Circuit hate guns, hate the 2nd Amendment and have never met a case they didn’t try to squeeze more gun control out of.

I say MOST judges because there are a few on the 9th Circuit that have not drank of the judicial activist kool-aid.  Judge Carlos T Bea dissented with the majority opinion writing as follows:

The Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms”
would not mean much unless one could lawfully purchase
and use arms.

Indeed, the County has offered no evidence
demonstrating that the Ordinance is the kind of regulation
which Americans would have seen as permissible at the time
of the adoption of the Second Amendment.

Thus, neither the historical evidence nor the language of
Heller supports the majority’s conclusion that the Second
Amendment offers no protection against regulations on the
sale of firearms.

I respectfully dissent.

I took pieces from different parts of his opinion and I will tell you his dissent was blistering in some parts.  You can read it in it’s entirety here starting on page 51:

9th Circuit Ruling on Alameda ban on gun stores

Now we wait for the Supreme Court to once again clean up the mess that the 9th Circuit likes to regurgitate on the Constitution and Bill of Rights whenever they get a chance.

I will say this though, thankfully it is Donald Trump who is the President appointing Supreme Court Justices and not Hillary Clinton because she would probably be stuffing the SCOTUS with 9th Circuit flunkies who would continue their hijacking of American liberty in the highest court in the land.

America was made a little greater by that alone.


Send this to friend