Ninth Circuit denies en banc rehearing in California switchblade ban; judge asks for ‘benchslaps’
SAN FRANCISCO — As recently as 2026, England disarmed citizens with knife bans and stiff penalties, and it seems that states like California would like to copy our wayward cousins in disarming citizens of one of the world’s oldest weapons (other than blunt force objects).
Along the way, courts have done a great deal to assist blue states, and this week, on July 16, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied an en banc rehearing in a case challenging California’s switchblade ban.
(You can see our full coverage on the court’s decision in favor of the state, issued on January 30 of this year.)
In its order denying a rehearing, the Ninth Circuit defends its position, writing “that California’s prohibition on the concealed carry of switchblade knives is consistent with our Nation’s history and tradition of arms regulation.”
That comes as no surprise from this activist court, and it’s a ploy used elsewhere, such as when the Seventh Circuit recently used a historical ban on Bowie knives to defend its AR-15 ban.
The Ninth Circuit has no objective impartiality with regard to the Second Amendment, as Judge VanDyke observed, writing, “I’m not exaggerating: between Heller in 2008, and Bruen in 2022, we considered at least 50 Second Amendment challenges – significantly more than any other circuit – and ultimately denied all of them.”
Judge VanDyke was so incensed that he wrote a separate dissent with this appeal to the Supreme Court:
So, what to do? I have a suggestion. The Supreme Court should consider summarily reversing some of our wayward Second Amendment decisions. To put it more colloquially, it’s time for some benchslaps. Nothing less will give this court any pause before ultimately blessing every arms restriction it reviews.
When a judge appeals to the Supreme Court for intervention before the plaintiffs do, there is a serious problem in the circuit.
Florida AG James Uthmeier steps up to again defend Second Amendment against local bans
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — He’s swiftly becoming one of the most pro-Second Amendment attorneys general in the country, and this week, on July 15, Florida AG James Uthmeier made a repeat performance, calling on the City of Winter Garden to repeal its weapons ban at the Tucker Ranch Recreation and Nature Complex. The AG noted that Florida law on weapons pre-empts all local regulations and threatened legal action if the city refused to cooperate.
In May, AG Uthmeier took action when a Florida HOA tried to ban firearms, and just days later, the HOA rescinded its policy by a vote.
More recently, in June, the AG moved to settle a lawsuit against the state’s three-day waiting period on firearms, and called the measure “unconstitutional.”
Fantastical filings in cases against Virginia’s ‘assault weapons’ ban
RICHMOND, Va. — The legal challenges against Virginia’s recently enacted “assault weapons” ban are getting – for lack of a better term – weird, with some fantastical claims in recent filings.
By way of refresher, on July 6, a Virginia court refused to consolidate the four major cases challenging the weapons ban, and just two days later, on July 8, a judge issued a statewide injunction against the measure.
Against that background, this week, on July 15, the defendant in the case filed a motion to dismiss claiming, “Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate that assault firearms and large capacity magazines are ‘arms’ protected by Section 13 or the Second Amendment.”
In addition, the state claims that the plaintiffs “fail to plead, and cannot demonstrate, a credible threat of enforcement.” Most Virginians would find that hard to believe after the testimony from the governor about the critical “public safety” element that required the passing of the weapons ban. The state’s throw-it-at-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks approach is evidence of a desperate legal Hail Mary.
ATF seeks to declare that training rounds ‘aren’t ammunition’ after declaring they are
WASHINGTON — As part of its proposed package of 34 rules introduced on April 29, the ATF this week, on July 15, issued a notice of proposed rulemaking declaring that training rounds are not ammunition.
The ATF’s determination that certain training/marking rounds qualified as regulated “ammunition” is a longstanding enforcement position dating back to the 1968 Gun Control Act.
The rule is available for comment on the Federal Register until August 4.
While this is a welcome and necessary correction of a past error, many have noted that it demonstrates the ungrounded way in which the ATF sways to the winds of political change, changing rules based upon the politics of the current administration.
A recent interview with ATF Director Robert Cekada and Robert Leider, conducted by Cam Edwards, posed this critical question:
“How do you make sure that these reforms don’t disappear the next time a Democrat’s in the White House?”
The ATF representatives’ answers fell short according to the vast majority of comments.
Supreme Court ruling in Wolford leads to reopening of May v. Bonta, California’s ‘sensitive places’ challenge
SANTA ANA, Calif. — The recent Supreme Court ruling in Wolford continues to have an impact on litigation around the nation.
On July 15, the United States District Court for the Central District of California issued an order lifting the stay in May v. Bonta and reopening the case in light of the recent SCOTUS decision. May v. Bonta is a consolidation of other cases challenging California’s “sensitive places” restrictions on carrying concealed firearms for self-defense. The order calls for the litigants to propose new case schedules within seven days of the order.
Lawmakers introduce measure to allow lawful carry in buildings on federal land
WASHINGTON — On July 16, Representatives Rudy Yakym (R-Ind.) and Pat Fallon (R-Texas) introduced H.R. 9719, which would amend federal law to allow the lawful carry of firearms inside buildings and facilities on federal land.
Although firearms are allowed in national parks, the buildings in those parks are still restricted areas. There are currently millions of acres of federal land managed by the government where firearms are also currently restricted, including land managed by the Army Corps of Engineers.
Earlier this year, 25 House Republicans wrote a joint letter to Secretary of the Army Daniel P. Driscoll to request that the U.S. Army end its gun ban on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-managed land. That letter went unanswered and likely spurred the introduction of this recent legislation by Representatives Yakym and Fallon.
