Court Vacates, Remands Ban on Sale of Semi-Auto Rifles to Adults Under 21. 9th circuit none the less
- Thread starter ttown
- Start Date
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco has vacated and remanded a lower court decision in the long-running challenge by the Second Amendment Foundation and National Rifle Association of provisions in gun control Initiative 1639, passed in November 2018, that prohibits the sale of semi-auto rifles to anyone under age 21, and also prevents sales of such rifles to residents of another state.
The announcement came Dec. 2. Joining SAF and NRA in the February 2019 lawsuit were firearms retailers Daniel Mitchell of Vancouver and Robin Ball of Spokane, and three private citizens in the prohibited age group. The case is known as Mitchell v. Atkins.
According to the tersely-worded order, the motion was unopposed.
The announcement came Dec. 2. Joining SAF and NRA in the February 2019 lawsuit were firearms retailers Daniel Mitchell of Vancouver and Robin Ball of Spokane, and three private citizens in the prohibited age group. The case is known as Mitchell v. Atkins.
According to the tersely-worded order, the motion was unopposed.
“The district court’s judgment is vacated in its entirety, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the United States Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen.”
The court action further underscores the far-reaching importance of the Bruen ruling, which did away with a “means-end scrutiny” strategy created by the federal courts following the McDonald ruling in 2010 that allowed states to essentially get around the Second Amendment by considering whether a challenged regulation promotes an important government interest.
We won?
Not so fast. I’m sure they’ll find a way…to do as they wish.
Sorry, "The court said that because of the Bruen ruling (good for gun rights), you can't base a person's right to own a gun based on the government's interests.
Like everyone said, We Won (this round)
It will also be interesting to see what happens in Oregon with that "Measure 114," which passed with just a small fraction of one point over 50 percent. It is a measure that limits magazine sizes to 10 rounds and requires a permit to purchase a firearm. Personally, I think 114 will be shut down, but who knows in the hell-holes known as Portland, Salem, and Eugene, OR.
Oregon Measure 114, the Changes to Firearm Ownership and Purchase Requirements Initiative, was on the ballot in Oregon as an initiated state statute on November 8, 2022. The ballot measure was approved.
Precincts reporting: 100%
Oregon Measure 114, the Changes to Firearm Ownership and Purchase Requirements Initiative, was on the ballot in Oregon as an initiated state statute on November 8, 2022. The ballot measure was approved.
A "yes" vote supported this ballot initiative to:
|
| A "no" vote opposed this ballot initiative thereby maintaining no limit on the capacity of ammunition magazines, except for hunting, and the existing law, which requires a seller/transferor to request a background check before firearm purchase. |
Election results
| Oregon Measure 114 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage |
| 975,553 | 50.65% |
| No | 950,589 | 49.35% |
Follow up to the above mention of Oregon's Measure 114. This is a video by an attorney in Washington state that posts YouTube videos on 2A topics. The still image at the bottom makes me wonder how they intend to have a person processing for a permit to get the firearm safety course, especially so if that person has to have a firearm in order to take the course.
Yes, but Trump nominated some folks for it that are more conservative, and the whole court probably got a lesson on jurisprudence with the Bruen case SCOTUS decision in New York.
The SCOTUS comment in their decision about "common use" firearms could prove to be extremely helpful in future 2A cases.
Similar threads
