ReportWire

Tag: Ninth Circuit

  • Judge panel rules California’s open carry ban unconstitutional

    A dissenting panel of federal judges for the Ninth Circuit on Friday deemed California’s open carry ban in most counties unconstitutional.The ruling comes following a challenge by Mark Baird, who the San Francisco Chronicle identifies as a gun owner from Siskiyou County. Baird specifically challenged California’s restriction on open carry in counties with a population greater than 200,000.(Video Above: California ammunition background check law is unconstitutional)The panel ruled 2-1 in Baird’s favor. In favor of Baird, Judge Lawrence VanDyke noted that the restrictions apply to roughly 95% of the state’s population. And for those counties with populations under 200,000, the judge notes that those wanting to open carry need to apply for a license allowing them to do so, but that the ability to secure the license is “unclear.””California admits that it has no record of even one open-carry license being issued, and one potential reason is that California has misled its citizens about how to apply for an open-carry license,” the ruling’s summary states, referring to the opinions of VanDyke and Judge Kenneth K. Lee. The panel held that the open carry ban was inconsistent with the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms as applied to states under the Fourteenth Amendment. It also referred to the standard applied in 2022’s New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which established that “historical record makes unmistakably plain that open carry is part of this Nation’s history and tradition.”Judge N. Randy Smith, who dissented in part, noted that “open carry is not conduct that is covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment.” Smith also noted that reasoning in the Bruen case allows California to lawfully eliminate one manner of public carry to protect citizens, “so long as its citizens may carry weapons in another manner that allows for self-defense.”Smith asserted that because California allows concealed carry, it may restrict open carry.While the court primarily sided with Baird, it also rejected his related challenge to California’s licensing requirements in counties with fewer than 200,000 residents. Those counties may issue open-carry permits.See the full ruling here. Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office slammed the ruling on social media Friday. “California just got military troops with weapons of war off of the streets of our cities, but now Republican activists on the Ninth Circuit want to replace them with gunslingers and return to the days of the Wild West. California’s law was carefully crafted to comply with the Second Amendment and we’re confident this decision will not stand,” the Newsom’s office said.KCRA 3 has reached out to California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s Office for comment.See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    A dissenting panel of federal judges for the Ninth Circuit on Friday deemed California’s open carry ban in most counties unconstitutional.

    The ruling comes following a challenge by Mark Baird, who the San Francisco Chronicle identifies as a gun owner from Siskiyou County. Baird specifically challenged California’s restriction on open carry in counties with a population greater than 200,000.

    (Video Above: California ammunition background check law is unconstitutional)

    The panel ruled 2-1 in Baird’s favor.

    In favor of Baird, Judge Lawrence VanDyke noted that the restrictions apply to roughly 95% of the state’s population. And for those counties with populations under 200,000, the judge notes that those wanting to open carry need to apply for a license allowing them to do so, but that the ability to secure the license is “unclear.”

    “California admits that it has no record of even one open-carry license being issued, and one potential reason is that California has misled its citizens about how to apply for an open-carry license,” the ruling’s summary states, referring to the opinions of VanDyke and Judge Kenneth K. Lee.

    The panel held that the open carry ban was inconsistent with the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms as applied to states under the Fourteenth Amendment. It also referred to the standard applied in 2022’s New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which established that “historical record makes unmistakably plain that open carry is part of this Nation’s history and tradition.”

    Judge N. Randy Smith, who dissented in part, noted that “open carry is not conduct that is covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment.” Smith also noted that reasoning in the Bruen case allows California to lawfully eliminate one manner of public carry to protect citizens, “so long as its citizens may carry weapons in another manner that allows for self-defense.”

    Smith asserted that because California allows concealed carry, it may restrict open carry.

    While the court primarily sided with Baird, it also rejected his related challenge to California’s licensing requirements in counties with fewer than 200,000 residents. Those counties may issue open-carry permits.

    See the full ruling here.

    Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office slammed the ruling on social media Friday.

    “California just got military troops with weapons of war off of the streets of our cities, but now Republican activists on the Ninth Circuit want to replace them with gunslingers and return to the days of the Wild West. California’s law was carefully crafted to comply with the Second Amendment and we’re confident this decision will not stand,” the Newsom’s office said.

    KCRA 3 has reached out to California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s Office for comment.

    See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    Source link

  • Ninth Circuit To Rehear National Guard Case; Oregon AG Welcomes Review – KXL

    PORTLAND, Ore. — The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has voted to rehear the federal government’s appeal in the ongoing National Guard case, granting an en banc review before a larger panel of judges.

    The decision vacates an earlier ruling by a three-judge panel and means that an expanded group of 11 judges will now reconsider the issues in the case. Both temporary restraining orders remain in effect as proceedings continue.

    Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield praised the court’s move, saying it reinforces constitutional limits on executive power.

    “This ruling shows the truth matters and that the courts are working to hold this administration accountable,” Rayfield said in a statement. “The Constitution limits the president’s power, and Oregon’s communities cannot be treated as a training ground for unchecked federal authority.”

    Rayfield added that the decision “sends a clear message” that the president cannot deploy military forces into U.S. cities unnecessarily. He said Oregon will continue to defend its “laws, values, and sovereignty” as the case moves forward.

    A related trial over the National Guard deployment in Oregon is set to begin Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Portland.

    More about:

    Jordan Vawter

    Source link

  • National Guard Deployments In DC And Portland, Oregon, Are Focus Of Court Hearings – KXL

    (AP) – No National Guard troops are expected to be deployed in Portland, Oregon, for at least several days, after a temporary federal appeals court decision Friday. Meanwhile, a judge in Washington, D.C., is weighing whether to pull more than 2,000 troops off the streets of the nation’s capital.

    The developments are the latest in a head-spinning array of lawsuits and overlapping rulings prompted by Trump’s push to send the military into Democratic-run cities despite fierce resistance from mayors and governors. Troop deployment remains blocked in the Chicago area, where all sides are waiting to see if the U.S. Supreme Court intervenes to allow it.

    Here’s what to know about the latest legal efforts to block or deploy the Guard in various cities.

    Troops in Oregon remain in limbo
    A federal appeals court on Friday paused a decision issued by a three-judge panel earlier in the week that could have allowed President Donald Trump to deploy 200 Oregon National Guard troops, ostensibly to protect federal property in Portland.

    The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said it needs until 5 p.m. Tuesday to decide whether to reconsider the panel’s decision, and the panel’s decision won’t take effect until then.

    U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee in Portland, issued two temporary restraining orders earlier this month — one prohibiting Trump from calling up Oregon troops to Portland and another blocking him from sending any Guard members to Oregon at all after he tried to evade the first order by deploying California troops instead.

    A 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel put the first ruling on hold Monday, letting Trump take command of 200 Oregon National Guard troops. But the second order remained in effect, blocking him from actually deploying them.

    At a hearing Friday, the Justice Department told Immergut she must immediately dissolve the second order because its reasoning was the same as that rejected by the appeals panel in a 2-1 decision Monday. Attorneys for Oregon disagreed, saying the orders were distinct and that she should wait to see if the 9th Circuit will reconsider the panel’s ruling.

    A challenge to troops in Washington, DC
    U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, heard arguments Friday on District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb ‘s request for an order that would remove more than 2,000 Guard members from Washington streets. She did not rule from the bench.

    In August, Trump issued an executive order declaring a crime emergency in the district — though the Department of Justice itself says violent crime there is at a 30-year low.

    Within a month, more than 2,300 Guard troops from eight states and the district were patrolling under the Army secretary’s command. Trump also deployed hundreds of federal agents to assist them.

    “Our constitutional democracy will never be the same if these occupations are permitted to stand,” attorneys from Schwalb’s office wrote.

    Government lawyers said Congress empowered the president to control the D.C. National Guard’s operation. They argued that Schwalb’s lawsuit is a frivolous “political stunt” threatening to undermine a successful campaign to reduce violent crime in Washington.

    Although the emergency period ended in September, more than 2,200 troops remain. Several states told The Associated Press they would bring their units home by Nov. 30, unless extended.

    Judge continues hearing on West Virginia’s deployment
    Among the states that sent troops to the district was West Virginia. A civic organization called the West Virginia Citizen Action Group says Gov. Patrick Morrisey exceeded his authority by deploying 300 to 400 Guard members to support Trump’s efforts there.

    Under state law, the group argues, the governor may deploy the National Guard out of state only for certain purposes, such as responding to a natural disaster or another state’s emergency request.

    “The Governor cannot transform our citizen-soldiers into a roving police force available at the whim of federal officials who bypass proper legal channels,” the group’s attorneys, with the American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia, wrote in a court document.

    Morrisey has said West Virginia “is proud to stand with President Trump,” and his office has said the deployment was authorized under federal law. The state attorney general’s office has asked Kanawha County Circuit Court Judge Richard D. Lindsay to reject the case, saying the group has not been harmed and lacks standing to challenge Morrisey’s decision.

    Lindsay heard some arguments Friday before continuing the hearing to Nov. 3 to give the state time to focus more on whether Morrisey had the authority to deploy the Guard members.

    In Chicago, awaiting word from the Supreme Court
    U.S. District Judge April Perry on Wednesday blocked Guard deployment to the Chicago area until the case is decided in her court or the U.S. Supreme Court intervenes. Perry previously blocked the deployment for two weeks through a temporary restraining order.

    Attorneys representing the federal government said they would agree to extend the order, but would also continue pressing for an emergency order from the Supreme Court that would allow for the deployment.

    Lawyers representing Chicago and Illinois have asked the Supreme Court to continue to block the deployment, calling it a “dramatic step.”

    Jordan Vawter

    Source link