Jump to content

McDougall v. Ventura County, No. 20-56220, and Martinez v. Villanueva, No. 20-56233 (California closing gun stores because of Covid)


Flynn
 Share

Recommended Posts

I don't know if there is a topic on this already, but IMO it's an interesting ruling as the 9th affirmed having access to "any guns and ammunition" is a right as is being able to go to gun ranges with "any firearms already owned"

 

Words matter in court rulings, especially when they are said by a higher court ruling

 

Quote

U.S. Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke in the Ventura County case said its orders barred citizens "from realizing their right to keep and bear arms, both by prohibiting access to acquiring any firearm and ammunition, and barring practice at firing ranges with any firearms already owned."

 

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/california-counties-pandemic-gun-store-closures-unconstitutional-court-rules-2022-01-20/

Edited by Flynn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Flynn changed the title to McDougall v. Ventura County, No. 20-56220, and Martinez v. Villanueva, No. 20-56233 (California closing gun stores because of Covid)
On 1/22/2022 at 12:13 AM, JTHunter said:

And from the 9th yet.  Wonder of wonders.

 

It was a panel decision. It'll be appealed for en banc and overturned, the same as the mag bans.

 

As with many Circuit Court of Appeals cases, this decision only applies to whether the original complaint could be dismissed. If this ruling stands (which it won't), it only means that the case would return to District Court to be heard. It wouldn't necessarily prohibit Ventura county (or any other county) from closing all gun stores and shooting ranges again.

 

If/when the en banc Court of Appeals re-dismisses the case, the plaintiffs still have the US Supreme Court, but I would expect the Supreme Court to deny it certiorari as moot, echoing the NYSRPA case on transport. The county's order to close all gun stores and shooting ranges has long since been rescinded.

 

I could be wrong. CA9 might refuse to hear the case en banc. Or it might hear the case and not overturn the panel decision. Or SCOTUS might grant it certiorari and not rule it moot. But I don't think any of those things will happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/01/20/20-56220.pdf

 

The "alternative draft opinion" after the real opinion is the funniest snark I've ever read in a judicial opinion. The judge who wrote that will definitely have annoyed his liberal judge colleagues. This case will go en banc in the 9th circus. No way the lib judges are going to ever deny the government the ability to shut down gun stores on any pretext that is presented to them. But do read and enjoy the snark, haha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...