Image by Boch. Base image via Ninth Circuit.
Previous Post
Next Post

Rob Romano, the creator of The Gun Case Tracker brings us some good news out of the Ninth Circuit in California.  The court there used strict scrutiny to strike down California’s ban on semi-auto rifles for young adults.  The decision in the case, Jones v. Bonta, does come with a string attached.  The court ruled that the state can require those young adults under 21 to obtain a $15 hunting license in order to purchase a semi-auto rifle.

The decision can be found here.



Civil Rights

The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s denial of plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin, under the Second Amendment, California’s bans on the sale of long guns and semiautomatic centerfire rifles to anyone under the age of 21.

The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to enjoin the requirement that young adults obtain a hunting license to purchase a long gun. But the district court erred in not enjoining an almost total ban on semiautomatic centerfire rifles.

First, the historical record showed that the Second Amendment protects the right of young adults to keep and bear arms, which includes the right to purchase them. Therefore, both California laws burdened conduct within the scope of the Second Amendment.

Second, the district court properly applied intermediate scrutiny to the long gun hunting license regulation, which permits a young adult to buy a long gun if he gets a hunting license. This requirement does not prevent young adults from having any firearms or from using them in any particular way, and therefore did not impose a significant burden on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the regulation would survive intermediate scrutiny, as defendants would likely be able to show that California’s long gun regulation was a reasonable fit for the stated objectives of increasing public safety through sensible firearm control.

Third, the district court erred by applying intermediate scrutiny, rather than strict scrutiny, to the semiautomatic centerfire rifle ban. Strict scrutiny applied because the law on its face banned almost all young adults from having semiautomatic rifles. The main difference between this ban and the long gun regulation was the exceptions. The long gun regulation has a readily available exception, at least on its face—young adults can get hunting licenses. The semiautomatic rifle ban has no such exception: the only young adults who can buy semiautomatic rifles are some law enforcement officers and active-duty military servicemembers. The panel held that California’s ban was a severe burden on the core Second Amendment right of selfdefense in the home. Even applying intermediate scrutiny, the ban, prohibiting commerce in semiautomatic rifles for all young adults except those in the police or military, regulated more conduct than was necessary to achieve its goal and therefore failed the reasonable fit test.

Finally, the panel held that the district court also abused its discretion in finding that there was no irreparable harm and that the public interest favored declining to issue an injunction.

Concurring, Judge Lee joined the opinion in full but wrote separately to highlight how California’s legal position has no logical stopping point and would ultimately erode fundamental rights enumerated in the Constitution. If California can deny the Second Amendment right to young adults based on their group’s disproportionate involvement in violent crimes, then the government can deny that right— as well as other rights—to other groups. Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable.”

Clearly this is good news for California’s young adults, and indeed for young adults across America.  The case also marks yet another big victory for the Firearms Policy Coalitions legal team.



Previous Post
Next Post


  1. The 9th Circuit? Whats going on in the Liberal Courts these days. Its getting almost scary. Since this isn’t the first decision in the last year from a Liberal Court striking down an unConstitutional firearms law.

      • presidential appointments often have a residual effect…impacting legalities long after the appointer has gone..Biden is in the process of doing the same thing right now…the effects show up later….

    • Darkman,

      Thank Trump and McConnell for getting enough rational judges on the 9th Circus to finally inject a note of sanity. As they did with SCOTUS. Get a DeSantis, a Tim Scott, or someone similar, into the White House in 2024 (since Senile Joe is going to get exactly diddly squat done after his Dimocrats get curb-stomped in 2022), and we can continue the idea of getting rational judges, rather than wanna-be legislators, onto the Federal bench.

      At this point, the 9th Circus is nearly evenly split between actual judges and “social justice” idiots – and some of the idiots are going to be retiring just in time for a Republican president to appoint sane replacements.

    • They are reading the stitching on the pending reversal of Roe – that the days of ignoring the meaning of the Constitution is over. Courts do not get to make law or legislatures to make Unconstitutional law. (HOPEFULLY)

      • we’ll see about the latter…strong push for that…but it is an election year…

    • Before I turned 20 I was leading a squad of hardcore SOG fighters, All under or barely over 21 carrying full auto weapons and grenades to hunt ‘humans’ with. And California has the mud fucking audacity to whimsically and capriciously, arbitrarily and illegally prohibit citizens Under 21 from having semi-auto firearms?

      I think what’s ‘going on’ with these courts, especially the Marxist orientated ones, is that This current abortion ‘uprising’ against their formerly sacrosanct bastion of ‘shadow legislating’ like gods of justice started to change them from woke to wake the fuck up and smell the hot black coffee being thrown in their faces. NO Cream or Sugar! You simply cannot continue to abridge, infringe, or circumvent through agenda-based proprietary legislation, the Constitution or violate the rights of others to exercise those rights without sooner or later having it smack back hard in the face like a Tyson left hook.

      What’s both ironic and refreshing to me is that when the gratuitous Roman Empire lifestyle’s of these affluent and holier-than-thou judges feel that THEY are now having their own rights violated by the masses of dumb asses who should be used to having their rights deprived by now, without anyone upholding accountability, like filing federal felony charges under 18-241-242 against ALL who enforce NON-ENFORCEABLE Gun Control Laws, and Conspiracies to even make such laws, the Swan song chanes its tune!

      Now, suddenly, when they crossed the line and fucked with the rights of Women (the other, more powerful ‘Deep State’) to have ultimate power control over their own bodies, and a wrath worse than Hell is now descending upon this totally corrupted Justice System, it then becomes A-Okay to file federal criminal charges against demonstrators who violate the rights of judges to not be harassed or threatened???

      So yeah, what we might be seeing here is a noticeable effect of the attrition of a never-ending fight to defend the 2nd/A now inadvertently joined by many gun-toting Progressive Women who are saying enough is enough, at least with infringing upon our body privacy. Thus creating a little jolt of electric fear up the ass of these legislators who typically didn’t want to ‘hear’ 2nd/A cases for the most part.

      The old Washington two-step mind fuck of just letting everything continue in the Deprivation of Rights status quo by keeping everything in the ‘CIVIL’ litigation process is pinching their pubic hairs a bit.

      They’re thinking: UH OH! If we start charging protestors with federal felonies under USC 18, then we’ll open up Pandora’s box of people catching on that we don’t have to hire expensive Constitutional lawyers to argue a 2nd/A gun case that’s already been settled several times over, for yet another period of years…while we continue to be infringed upon by deprivations of rights crimes.

      We can simply get our State Federal prosecutors to send the State Police over to the State legislators’ offices and arrest all who sponsored the recent Bill for more Rights Depriving restrictions and prohibitions on our uninfringeable 2nd/A! Under 18-241-242. Clear as day, they gotta pay!

      How come nobody told us about this? I mean if we can, under federal law, indict and arrest protesters because it violates a judge’s rights to privacy, We sure as hell better be able to IMMEDIATELY handcuff and perp walk anybody who tries to infringe upon our 2nd/A by attempting to make gun laws along with ‘authorities’ who try to enforce them? Why did we ever need to go to SCOTUS in the first place?

      ‘What’s good for the goose is good for the gander’?

      The moral, and the irony of the story, of course, is…

      There’s a point where corrupted ‘justice’ can only go so far before it begins to cut its own balls off. The irony is that Liberal women might do more to stop gun control and actually protect against the infringement against the 2nd/A, than would have happened without this Roe v. Wade. issue!

    • OMG. The old geezers finally ruled in favor of the Constitution. The 9th rarely does that.

      • The state can request en banc.

        That eats up time. And Leftist Scum ™ are all about slow-walking gun rights.

        It’s a bit interesting they laid down the ‘strict scrutiny’ card, but I wonder if that’s like Twitter suddenly changing their tune on what behavior constitutes a user ban…

        • If they don’t elect to re-hear it en banc, then the SCotUS would be the next (and last) hope for it.

          (Something tells me they know they’re gonna lose big in the very near future…)

      • Every time the 9th issues a favorable ruling, the go en banc and overturn it. I expect this to happen inside a week.

        • Yup, as one panel decision accurately mocked the liberals on the circuit–in an opinion that of course went en banc as it contradicted the historical antipathy to gun rights n the Ninth Circuit. The en banc panel of 11 judges has never failed to overturn a trial court of panel decision upholding 2A rights. Although the en banc court may uphold the panel decision of long guns in general, it will likely reverse as to the ban on the purchase of semi-automatic rifles. And it will do so notwithstanding that we are NOT talking about “assault weapons,” but instead on semi-auto rifles that may be legally purchased in California. It will conclude that the ban only “slightly” impinges on the right as there are other rifles available to young adults for hunting purposes that are outside the ban.

          I am not suggesting I agree, I’m just speculating as to what the future may hold based on the past performance of the en banc panels.

    • We’ll get the NYSRPA v. Bruen decision before then, and I suspect the Supremes are going to make strict scrutiny the default standard.

      • “…and I suspect the Supremes are going to make strict scrutiny the default standard.”

        We don’t know that or not. Something tells me all we may get is some sort of modified ‘strict scrutiny’ they can abuse… 🙁

        • All you’ll need to know is who wrote for the majority. If it’s Thomas, it may be constitutional carry and strict scrutiny.

          If it’s Roberts, it will be crap.

        • May St. Thomas give them the brutal swift kick in the nads they will never forget… 🙂

        • Geoff,

          “May St. Thomas give them the brutal swift kick in the nads . . . ” Objection, Counselor, assuming facts not in evidence. Where is your proof that they even HAVE nads???

      • The only problem i see with that would be lower courts ignoring it with impunity. Maybe I’m finally earning my grumpy old man badge but I’m fewer reasons to trust any branch of the government on just about any subject.

        • Welcome to the CLub. WHY it took two years of covidiocy to awaken more folks to the tyranny we’ve been udder for a couple of generations I do not know… but the gummit response to a silly cold virus has opened tens of thousands of eyes. And this is a good thing.

          Of course, what we will DO with it now we’ve seen past the curtain to the crookedy old man pulling the strings and levers is yet another matter.

      • @Cory,

        That’s my gut feeling as well. I think the Ninth might be seeing the writing on the wall, and are leaning (oh so slightly, but leaning nonetheless) closer toward strict scrutiny to avoid inevitable overturns by SCOTUS.

        I could be wrong, but both CA and the Ninth hate guns and the 2A, so it appears that the impending NYSRPA decision is already making its presence known.

    • Every positive 2A decision from a three justice appeals panel has been reversed en banc. This one is no different.

  2. This ruling almost as bad as the original law. It affirms the state’s authority to require a hunting license to purchase a rifle. I can’t even count the ways the left coast might use this ruling to institute a practical ban on rifles. Oops, we have a drought. No Hunting licenses for the rest of this decade!

      • “Hunting license is at least a backdoor state registry.”

        Of gun owners, yes.

        How many states require listing the serial numbers of guns used for hunting?

        I’m aware some states require the listing of serial numbers for concealed-carry firearms…

    • aircooled,

      It is far worse than that: California can increase the cost of a hunting license to $1000 which will prevent the “riff raff” from purchasing firearms.

      • Attack that by claiming ‘Poll Tax’, a Jim Crow era racist policy…

      • …which would lead to a dearth of hunters…perhaps that’s also something they desire…limit it to the country club set…

  3. “Second, the district court properly applied intermediate scrutiny to the long gun hunting license regulation, which permits a young adult to buy a long gun if he gets a hunting license. This requirement does not prevent young adults from having any firearms or from using them in any particular way, and therefore did not impose a significant burden on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the regulation would survive intermediate scrutiny, as defendants would likely be able to show that California’s long gun regulation was a reasonable fit for the stated objectives of increasing public safety through sensible firearm control.”

    from the affirmed part, does not fit with:

    “The panel held that California’s ban was a severe burden on the core Second Amendment right of selfdefense in the home.”

    from the denied part. So it’s ok to force a 20 yo to buy a hunting license along with the purchase of a semi-auto rifle, even though selfdefense [sic] is the primary focus of the 2A. What a mishmash, as if they set it up to be appealed. Wondering whether CDFW submitted an amicus brief…

    • so what are those hunting license fees used for?….in my state it’s for wildlife management…

  4. An example of racist or selective gun control. The .410 hand gun was banded 100 years ago in california because, it was the favorite weapon of chinese and mexican criminals.
    They also liked using hachets. But they are not banded.

    The so-called gun experts with their six or seven gun safes and granddaddy shotgun. Say the Taurus judge in the Smith & Wesson governor are terrible handguns. The committed organized criminals in the state of California would disagree. They have gotten rid of a lot of their enemies that way. No survivors.

  5. Just shows how out of touch the liberal 9th circus is, though I will take any ruling towards freedom from tyranny. Baby steps if you will.
    Purchasing a hunting license for the paltry sum of $15? No, it is $54. So……. a tax to invoke a God-given right because of being of a certain age?
    Anyhoo, the Second wasn’t written to protect hunting, ergo why the need for a hunting license, it was written to give the people the means to kill tyrants, both foreign and Domestic.

    • seems a bit high…but then those bureaucrats need to get paid…of course some of the western states charge much more…


    • I kniw, in my state, a young man of eleven years of age, who has joined his local gun club’s cometition rifle team. He brings HIS OWN rifle. He competes and wins often. His rifle is an M 1 Garand. You gonna tell me this “kid” should not have his long gun? You’re wrong. That Second ARcitle of Ammendment imposes no age restrictioins or requirements.
      I know of accounts where ten and twelve year old “children” accessed the family’s handgun and used it to STOP rmed home invaders likely able and willing to kill. Good thing that wasn’t a “sfe storage mandate” statel, else Mum and Dad, after burying their children, would then face charges for not having the handgun secured. by the way, Mum was one of the intended victims the 11 year old buy saved, using the family’s handgun.
      got any more ridiculous ideas I can shoot down?
      Maybe you should consider leaving North Texas before your crazy tyrannical ideas get too well known.

      • “That Second ARcitle of Ammendment imposes no age restrictioins or requirements.“

        Also mentions no restrictions on mental defect or insanity, under your interpretation psychopaths and the criminally insane should be allowed free access to firearms.

        That seems reasonable…

    • And what about the age to vote? Or sign a legal contract? Imagine how the military would feel if the minimum age to join was 21. All that said, I would support obtaining full citizenship rights at age 21 OR at age 18 by joining the military.

      • “And what about the age to vote? Or sign a legal contract?”

        An excellent idea!

        Let’s propose a deal – Since they seem to think 16 year-olds are mature enough to vote, expand that to all rights, including the buying and carrying of guns in public.

        What? There’s not mature enough for that kind of responsibility?

        Then they damn sure aren’t old enough for other adult responsibilities, like voting… 🙂


      • The term is ‘false equivalence’.

        The difference is once you join the military you undergo months of intensive training by experienced professionals in the proper handling and employment of deadly weapons.

        Those who advocate no age or training restrictions apparently have never been around a 16-year-old male, full of piss and vinegar and short on measured consideration and patience.

        • No, MinorIQ, we get to deal with you all the time. A little short on “piss and vinegar”, but you’ve got the whole “short on measured consideration” thing down to a freakin’ science!!

          Tell us again how Article I, Section 8 authorized federal universal gun control. I could use a good laugh.

    • NTexas,

      One more example that you are full of s***, in addition to being A LOUD, ANNOYING, SHOUTING, ILLITERATE IDIOT.

      Perhaps MinorIQ and dacian the stupid would allow you to join their circle jerk, and you could leave the rest of us alone, safe from YOUR DAMN, RUDE-@$$ SHOUTING. Try to learn English, spelling, punctuation and CAPS LOCK CONTROL, you annoying twerp.

    • NTexas is a troll. Just ignore the worthless piece of shìt. Nobody could possibly be as stupid as his comments portray him to be.

    • I harvested my first deer with an SKS at 10 years old. An actual weapon used in war.

      My children were trained on ARs, AKs and SKSs at early ages.

      Joining the military does not mean you get to own a particular firearm either. You can’t just go to the arms room and sign out your assigned weapon for some range time. Even if they enlisted at 17, California would still require a hunting license to PURCHASE and OWN the firearm and if you lived in the barracks you would have to keep it in the arms room. You would have to coordinate with your chain of command and the armor to retrieve your personally owned firearm from the arms room to get range time. Many armors also have lives and don’t want to have to open and close the arms room off duty time.

    • remember driving up to the reserve center one weekend only to see some of these
      ‘soldiers” running around in the parking lot pointing their guns at each other in a playful manner…kind of shocking, really…not much maturity there…that never happened when we were policing the place…

      • …also remember the night a deuce and a half pulled up in front of our office…they wanted to know if they could leave their load with us because the arms room was already closed…turned out to be about 200 M-16’s and an M-60…we spent a very uneasy night worrying about a set-up….

  7. Strict scrutiny means 20 year old adults don’t have a guaranteed right to purchase arms?

    Senator Prick Scott will be glad to hear it.

    • They cannot buy any guns at all until 21 in this State. The exception here is to allow young adults to buy hunting rifles. California is sooo generous!

      • …or shotguns, I presume…got my first at 15 as a gift…these days that would probably viewed as a straw purchase…nobody cared back then…

  8. So sounds like this means we are allowed to create “voting licenses,” and charge people $15 to obtain one…

    It would be an “exception,” after all….

  9. AS much as I would like to say I am an absolutist and no requirements are needed at all, I am also a proponent of training. As long as the training is #1 affordable, and #2 readily available, I don’t have an issue with it as much as I thought I would.
    Yes en banc it will probably be shot down.
    My hope is that the ruling regarding NYSRPA v. Bruen will be strong enough in our favor that it would either overrule any outcome of a ninth circuit court en banc, and hopefully strike down a few other laws along the way.

    • Daniel, Daniel, Daniel, did you mean Fudd? Come on, training is great as long as it’s not mandatory. Why should someone need a hunting license to buy a gun to use for home protection? No logic. But as far as that goes, why can’t 18 YOs buy handguns? We have become so accustomed to these ridiculous restrictions we start thinking they make sense. They don’t.

      Absolutist (def) – What part of shall not be infringed don’t you understand?

    • “As long as the training is #1 affordable, and #2 readily available, I don’t have an issue with it as much as I thought I would.”

      Universally-available in high schools if they want it, like driver’s ed…

      • What about mandatory training to vote?
        What about mandatory training to express your thoughts through speech?
        What about mandatory training to go to church?
        What about mandatory training to redress government?
        What about mandatory training to …

        • Well… if nothing else a class on civics should be a mandatory subject in school. Right now Arizona is the only state left that tells teach kids how the government works anymore.

        • “What about mandatory training to vote?”

          I’m fine with that on one condition –

          That we have equal time to present the conservative point of view on government.

          After all, it’s only fair.

          And, aren’t Leftist Scum ™ supposed to be all about ‘fairness’? 🙂

        • “What about mandatory training to vote?
          What about mandatory training to express your thoughts through speech?”

          We already have that, every state in the union requires children to attend school until at least age 16.

          I do wish they did a better job with civics and governance, but the mandatory training has been in place for decades.

        • Miner… What was it you like to say about “False Equivalency”? A person who doesn’t attend school doesn’t lose the right to speech or the ability to vote. That makes your claim…. an easily disproven lie.

        • Mandatory training to not to have soldiers quartered in your apartment against your will.
          Mandatory training to not be sentenced to public flagellation for a parking ticket.
          Mandatory training to not be compelled to testify against yourself.

      • Sorry, Geoff, I for one am NOT willing to leave “gun training” in the hands of government, and particularly not government-run schools. “OK, class, before we have range time, we have to discuss our gender identity.” Thanks, but no thanks. The government controls “training” drivers. And you NEVER drive somewhere, see a completely incompetent driver, and say “What @$$hole gave THAT moron a license??”, amirite??

        Responsible gun owners get training. Irresponsible ones account for our “negligent” discharges and “bad” shoots. I don’t trust the government with something as important as firearms training. As my (lifelong Dimocrat) father used to say, “Son, the government can f*** up a one car parade!”.

        • “I for one am NOT willing to leave “gun training” in the hands of government, and particularly not government-run schools.”

          Require equal time for pro 2A instruction.

          After all, it’s only fair.

          And, aren’t Leftist Scum ™ supposed to be all about ‘fairness’? 🙂

    • I also am a VERY strong advocate of “training”. In fact I am so committed to that I volunteer with an organisation providing the BEST rifle safety and marksmanship training availble anywhere. I said volunteer, at my own expense, not for hire. NONE of us ever get a nickel for our labours. But most states mandating “training” would not accet ours.
      There are many ways of getting “training”. Friends and reltives, anyone else committed to the common availblility and use of arms, can and do provide adequate training. Family members in particular.. oder siblings, uncles, not to mention parents and grandparents. I had all the training necessary to safely and reasonably accuratel handle a rifle by the time I was six. Never would have satisfied any “government” requirements imposed.

      Do the state mandate “training” in the safe handling of kitchen knives? Camp stoves, rowboats and sailing dinghies? How about bicycles? Many children are killed weach year wnislt riding bicycles. This carnage MUST stop.. and gummit will make it so, right? Nah.

      Yes, training, NO to government mandated and specified “training’. When theState of Ohio first “allowed’ her citizens to get a Mother May I Card to carry a conealed handgun in publi,c they mandated I think it was twelve hours of state certified training. This cost a LOT of money, Had to include so many hours and rounds of live fire training at a certified range. Dad coud not take Son out into the woods and provide the training. Was Ohio any safer than other states, like mine with NO requriements? Nope. Eventually dropped to eight ours, still prohibitively expensive to some folks.

    • I’m in favor of training. Have at it. Do as much as you want and can afford. Improving yourself is a worthy effort.

      Training requirements can die in a fire. They’re just pointless, ineffective red tape.

      • took an evening course [no range time]…to get a Utah and Arizona permit…Florida requires you show some evidence of previous training…

    • “I am also a proponent of training. As long as the training is #1 affordable, and #2 readily available, I don’t have an issue with it as much as I thought I would.”

      Two thoughts here:
      1. “Training” is a vague term with determination of “training” left to the state to validate

      2. The “panel” at 9th circus put “level of scrutiny” at the core of their decision. 9th en banc will be forced to deal with scrutiny level. This could put the SC at risk of a wider ruling (scrutiny) than might be twisted out of the NYS Rifle and Pistol case.

  10. It’s always something to cateorgize people by age, employment, race, gender, etc. If you are in a certain group you can do this and that. If you are not in a certain group you cannot do this and that.

    Bottom line…Discrimination has always been inherent with Gun Control.

  11. You guys know I like to hunt. I have to ask. What does a hunting license have to do with any firearm I own?

    • Somehow I don’t think that hunter training relates to taking on the two legged prey.

      • Gman, I think you, sir, are mistaken. I never had any hunter training. Unless, you want to count Dad, Grandpa and what I learned by making mistakes. The government taught me to hunt the “two legged prey.” I did it for a long time. I found those hunting skills I learned as a boy and young man to be advantageous in both pursuits.

    • @GF

      Did you ever get a response the other day to your offer to purchase the pistol?

      Back to today’s topic: hunting license and firearm ownership…completely unrelated subjects. One does not necessarily include nor preclude the other…just one of them Non Sequitur statements to satisfy the Court (in the Progressive mind it is still gun control by little, tiny bites…like being eaten alive by horseflies versus a T-Rex…while the Fudds cheer it as a Victory).

      • Old Guy, yes I did. Alien have spoken a couple of times. And texts. A pleasant gentleman. Another nice handgun has entered the negotiations. They continue. Don’t you love a gun deal?

        • Yes Sir, I love a great gun deal. Recently picked up a 105 year old Winchester Model 12 (12 ga) that has been gently used and never abused…30″ full choke. Took it apart, ultrasonically cleaned the bolt and trigger ass’y whilst cleaning the receiver and barrel with my favorite BoreTech solutions and finally an application of TW-25b and MC-2500 in the right places and it is as smooth as owl sht coated Teflon.

          I wish you an equal good fortune in your acquisitions.

    • Assuming you are over 21, nothing. In California, you have to be 21 to buy ANY firearm. This challenged law allows an exception for young adults aged 18-21 to learn and participate in the activity and purchase rifles to do so.

  12. Yep and now comes the 24 year wait and the $15 paid for the license documents tobe processed. So in fact, probably nothing has changed at all…good ruling though.

  13. Leave it to the socialist repulik of Commiefornia to screw this up… again. A hunting license is giving you permission to HUNT, not buy a friggin gun. Now, I can see the brainiacs on the left coast using this to increase the license cost or throw in other issues that deter anyone from getting them. This is nothing more than “We’ll concede that you can own it but we’ll put yet another insane stipulation on it that’s nothing more than a tax and a way to track you”.

  14. Sounds like they are trying to make precedent that AR-15s are just for hunting to me. They want to use this in other Supreme Court cases coming out of the 9th or did not want the Supreme Court to rule on this case at all.

    • number of hunters has been declining…virtually all states now permit an AR-15 for hunting in some capacity in an effort to boost their numbers…

  15. While I agree that the law is wrong. If I sold long guns and wanted the 18-21 yo’s business, I would offer to rebate the money they paid for the hunting license.

  16. Since it was just a three judge panel, the full 9th circuit will weigh in and overrule them. It happens every damn time!

    Opinion by Judge R. Nelson;
    Concurrence by Judge Lee;
    Dissent by Judge Stein

  17. That’s why I say we have no hope for change except by force. This country has been taken over by corrupt politicians for over 45 years. Everyone one that in government from the past 45 years has baggage. They all need to be put on trial and investigated.i do home work ….. 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐬𝐜𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐤.𝐜𝐨𝐦

  18. Don’t break out the champagne — this is a “win” but it is a very small and very temporary win.
    Any California 18-20 y/o who wants to buy a semiauto rifle better already have their hunting license and be standing at the door of their local gun shop with cash in hand.

    This ruling was by a three-judge panel, not by the full 9th Circuit Court. Kalifornia will have their appeal submitted before you finish reading all the Wow We Won articles online.

    Kalifornia frequently loses before a panel of the 9th Circuit — and they ALWAYS appear — and they ALWAYS request a stay — and they ALWAYS get the stay, meaning that the ruling has no impact from the time the stay is issued until the case is reviewed by the full 9th Circuit Court en banc — where Kalifornia will probably win because despite several Trump-appointed judges, this is still the farthest left court in Amerika.

    After the full 9th Circuit Court rules on the case, it still won’t make much difference. If Kalifornia wins (as they probably will) FPC will have to fund the plaintiffs appeal to SCOTUS. If the Plaintiffs win, Kalifornia will appeal the SCOTUS and FPC will still have to fund the plaintiffs’ case.

    Yes, this case is important — not for the rights of 18-20 year olds in Kalifornia, but as a test case for the legal arguments being used and for the concept that Strict Scrutiny is the proper standard for any 2nd Amendment case. The ruling is important because it lays out the arguments in a legally acknowledged forum.

    But the case is far from over — we haven’t won the war — we haven’t even won a battle, yet — we have won one small skirmish, and that’s important, but don’t think for one second that the fight is over.

  19. This is too significant of a finding (strict scrutiny versus ‘intermediate’) so it will be reviewed en banc and reversed and appealed to scotus. What happens then, no one knows.

    The only other result would be if someone tells california to knock it the f off because they don’t want national caselaw on the issue.

  20. I am unclear how the 9th ruled California can require a hunting license while at the same time adhering to “Strict Scrutiny”? Hunting is explicitly mentioned in the 2nd Amendment? Also, I certainly hope not, but the usual suspects of the 9th Circus will magically appear for an en banc ruling supporting this stupid, unconstitutional law…it’s California:{

    • still,..seems a bit more reasonable than that ridiculous card required in Illinois…..

    • dacian, the Dunderhead. You just might be in for a rude awakening. Not to mention there is this thing called The Supreme Court.

Comments are closed.