USA -(Ammoland.com)- On April 4, 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc (by the “full court”) in the case of Jeff Silvester, et al. v. Calif. Attorney General Xavier Becerra (formerly captioned Silvester v. Kamala Harris), a federal Second Amendment lawsuit challenging the State of California’s irrational waiting period laws imposed on law-abiding existing gun owners and people licensed to carry handguns in public by their sheriff or police chief.
In its decision to ignore the trial court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as well as longstanding principles of appellate review, and now in its refusal to correct the 3-judge panel decision’s manifest errors in all regards, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has made it crystal clear that it has no intention of following the Supreme Court’s precedent and protecting Second Amendment rights from unconstitutional, burdensome, and irrational laws.
Given its record here and in previous cases like Peruta v. San Diego, the Ninth Circuit’s interest in en banc re-hearings is apparently limited to only those cases in which the 3-judge panel decision comes down on the side of individual liberty and Second Amendment rights, and then only so that it can reverse those pro-freedom decisions.
We maintain that the Ninth Circuit’s panel opinion was patently wrong as a matter of law. Not only did the panel incorrectly decide the Second Amendment issues in favor of the State of California, but in doing so it ignored important legal rules that govern the review of a lower court’s judgment after a trial.
By refusing to correct the panel’s decision here, the Ninth Circuit has dared the Supreme Court to overturn them or bind tens of millions of law-abiding people to the tyrannies imposed on them and their right to keep and bear arms by the State of California and other similarly-hostile governments.
About The Calguns Foundation:
The Calguns Foundation is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization that serves its members, supporters, and the public through educational, cultural, and judicial efforts to defend and advance Second Amendment and related civil rights.
Supporters may visit their website to join or donate to CGF.
Wild Bill for special prosecutor
Maybe it’s time to start charging and convicting these judges with the federal felonies that they’re obviously guilty of and throwing their usurping back-sides in Leavenworth for 1-10. The felonies I speak of are located in Title 18, USC, Secs. 241 & 242, which dictate that if ANYONE, including judges, legislators, or LEOs that conspire to, or actually deprive anyone of a right that is secured by the U.S. Constitution, that those individuals are guilty of these felonies. This would also include Governor Sh*t-brindle… uh, er, Brown… for enacting and enforcing such premeditated usurpations.
@B. You need a federal prosecutor to charge them with a federal felony.
The rule of law for liberals is my way or the highway
They continually violate the first amendment if a
Conservative wishes to speak at institutions of lesser
Learning like Berkeley Ca. Among many others.
So why not the Second Amendment and others as well.
Sorry M Reyna, The First Amendment only prevents governmental action, not individual action.
Now that there is a majority of conservatives on the SCOTUS maybe we can get the anti gunners off our backs.
@Hippy, There is not a majority of conservatives on the S.Ct! Kennedy is a liberal in disguise (read his decisions in homosexual cases!), although democrats like to portray him as a conservative for misinformation purposes. The enemies of freedom have been around since before the Bill of Rights. So shooter ready, be alert, and watch your lane.
Folks this is why it is so important to stop ALL of these Clown liberals in Gov’t and especially in the Courts!