Re: Dissenting Judge in Ninth Circuit Ammo Ban Case Almost Starts to Get It

"useapen" <[email protected]> wrote in message 
news:[email protected]...
> Dissents are often important in various legal cases, not because they
> carry any actual force, but because they frame the potential problems with
> the majority's opinion.
>
> That's fair enough, though far too often, people cite them as if they're
> authoritative, and judge from what one particular Supreme Court justice
> keeps writing, that's probably not a given.
>
> In the Ninth Circuit, the majority found that California's law requiring
> background checks for ammunition was unconstitutional. Cam covered that on
> Thursday, but one thing I saw that he didn't talk about was the dissent.
>
> Judge Jay Bybee wasn't in agreement with his colleagues, but his dissent
> almost suggested his understanding was dawning.
>
> "Because none of the historical analogues proffered by California is
> within the relevant time frame, or is relevantly similar to California's
> ammunition background check regime, California's ammunition background
> check regime does not survive scrutiny under the two-step Bruen analysis,"
> Ikuta wrote.
>
> In a fiery dissent, Judge Jay Bybee said the decision failed to correctly
> apply the Bruen test, and that using the logic of the decision, any
> firearms regulation could be interpreted as a violation of the Second
> Amendment.
>
> "It is difficult to imagine a regulation on the acquisition of ammunition
> or firearms that would not 'meaningfully constrain' the right to keep and
> bear arms under the majority's new general applicability standard," Bybee
> wrote in the dissent.
>
> That's kind of the point, though, isn't it?
>
> While there are some historic parallels that are hard to ignore, such as
> the laws prohibiting the carrying of a firearm while drunk, others are
> much more of a reach. California tried such a reach to justify the
> ammunition restrictions, and the Ninth Circuit wasn't buying it.
>
> Bybee is upset because he'd prefer history, text, and tradition be mangled
> so as to justify any restriction--the exact opposite of what he accused
> the majority of trying to do--and he clearly sees the issue. He just
> thinks it's a bad thing.
>
> Yet let's u understand that the restrictions don't actually inhibit
> criminals.
>
> For one thing, ammunition isn't serialized. There was never any way to
> enforce the law and arrest criminals who simply hadn't been caught when
> they bought ammo for their buddies. It simply created a burden that
> negatively impacted lawful ammunition purchasers and would thus discourage
> lawful gun ownership.
>
> It was never practical.
>
> But from a post-Bruen constitutionality standpoint, I can't imagine any
> analog that was remotely close to this law existing. There might be
> storage requirements, because a lot of gunpowder stored improperly was
> unsafe for everyone, but there weren't restrictions on buying it or even
> how much you can have, at least that I've seen anywhere.
>
> Bybee almost seems to understand that, and his issue is that they didn't
> reach far enough or something. It's inane, but then again, he wants the
> law to be constitutional. Inanity seems to be the norm here.
>
> Unfortunately, it's not, and the Ninth Circuit three-judge panel smacked
> the state down for this terrible regulation. Bybee can be disappointed,
> but there's a reason he's in the minority. It's because the other two
> seemed to get what he saw as the problem with their reasoning.
>
> https://bearingarms.com/tomknighton/2025/07/26/dissenting-judge-in-ninth-
> circuit-ammo-ban-case-almost-starts-to-get-it-n1229388

One question to ask would be if such a law were applied to buying say a 
newspaper, would you support it?

If not, then your reasons would probably apply to ammunition