Ninth Circuit Panel Rules CA Unsafe Handgun
Act not Covered by Second Amendment
By Dean Weingarten. August 10th, 2018
Original Source
A three judge panel in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled the restrictions of the California Unsafe Handgun Act (UHA) do not violate the Second Amendment. In circular reasoning, the opinion posits the UHA restrictions do not restrict behavior protected by the Second Amendment. They then apply the least restrictive Constitutional test to determine if the behavior is protected. Unsurprisingly, they find that it is not.
The key to the decision is the Ninth Circuit's hostility to a broad reading of the Second Amendment. The Circuit, in it's en banc rulings, such as Peruta, Tiexeira v. County of Alameda, and in a three judge panel, Silvester v. Harris, has consistently worked to restrict Second Amendment rights to the narrowest possible box. An analogous reading of the First Amendment would be that the State can restrict certain publications on the grounds that they might impact public safety. For example, that violent video games could be banned. The Supreme Court has rejected that argument for the First Amendment.
Here is the summation of the opinion of the court, From Pena v. Lindley:
California requires that new models of handguns meet certain criteria, and be listed on a handgun roster, before they may be offered for sale in the state. Two provisions require that a handgun have a chamber load indicator and a magazine detachment mechanism, both of which are designed to limit accidental firearm discharges. The third provision, adopted to aid law enforcement, requires new handguns to stamp microscopically the handgun's make, model, and serial number onto each fired shell casing. Plaintiffs asserted that these three provisions have narrowed their ability to buy firearms in California, in violation of the Second Amendment, and that the handgun roster scheme imposes irrational exceptions, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment..
(more).. ....... 
Anti 2A judges (of which the 9th Circuit seems to have plenty) seemingly will frequently find ways to wriggle out of accepting many things firearm oriented that come up for judgement. Popular ploys can include "public safety", "sensible measures" and probably also the use of the word "reasonable" - which can be used to cover about anything. The Second Amendment in CA continues to be under attack and seriously infringed upon.
"You don't have to be Jewish to fight by our side."
You just have to love freedom.
© 2018 JPFO All rights reserved.
jpfo@jpfo.org
1-800-869-1884
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
12500 NE 10th Pl.
Bellevue, WA 98005 USA
"America's most aggressive defender of civil rights"
We make the NRA look like moderates
