Hawaii Cruise Tax Blocked By Appeals Court

Above, a hillside view of Diamond Head and Waikiki hotels. Photo by Armand Vaquer.

Hawaii's Democrat-controlled government's cruise tax on cruise ship line has been blocked by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals before it went into effect.

This is a big win for cruise lines.

Travel Weekly reported:

A federal appeals court blocked Hawaii's cruise tax the day before it was set to take effect, a win for the cruise lines. CLIA, the cruise lines' trade group, had sued the state of Hawaii in August over the new legislation.

The Dec. 31 order in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was issued within hours of the 11% tax becoming effective in the new year. It followed a Dec. 23 decision by U.S. District Court Judge Jill Otake that had cleared the way for the tax to start Jan. 1. 

The appeals court has not yet reached a final decision on the lawsuit. The order blocking the tax remains in effect until it does so, and the process is being expedited. 

To read more, go here. 

Appeals Court Strikes Down California Open-Carry Ban

Slowly, but surely, the courts are striking down California's wacko gun laws.

This time, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the state's ban on open-carry of firearms.

Fox News reported:

A federal appeals court on Friday struck down California’s ban on openly carrying guns across most of the state.

In a 2–1 decision, the San Francisco-based Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled California's ban on open carry in counties with more than 200,000 people — covering roughly 95% of the state’s population — violates the Second Amendment, according to Reuters.

U.S. Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke, writing for the majority, said the ban conflicts with the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which requires gun regulations to be consistent with the nation’s "historical tradition of firearm regulation," Reuters reported.

To read more, go here. 

Court Strikes Down CA Ammo Background Check Law

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down California's law requiring a background check for ammunition purchases, ruling that the law violated the Second Amendment.

CalMatters reported:

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down California’s first-in-the-nation law requiring background checks for ammunition purchases, another blow to the state’s gun control framework that has been pared down, case by case, since the U.S. Supreme Court dramatically expanded gun rights in a monumental 2022 decision. 

The California law that forced ammunition purchasers to pass a background check was passed by voters in 2016. Gov. Gavin Newsom, at the time the state’s lieutenant governor, championed the initiative and was its primary advocate. 

In 2018, before the law went into effect, a group of gun rights advocates and ammunition vendors sued to block the law. 

To read more, go here. 

Ninth Circuit Strikes Down CA’s One-Gun-A-Month Law

It looks like the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals got one right for a change.

It struck down California's one gun a month (30 days) law first enacted back in 1999.  It said it violates the Second Amendment.

According to the NRA-ILA:

Today, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that California’s law prohibiting people from buying more than one firearm in a 30-day period violates the Second Amendment.

California enacted its one-gun-a-month law in 1999, at which point it applied only to concealable firearms. By 2024, it applied to all firearms. Several plaintiffs—including six individuals, PWGG, LP, North County Shooting Center, Firearms Policy Coalition, San Diego County Gun Owners Political Action Committee, and Second Amendment Foundation—challenged the law in the Southern District of California. After the district court held the law unconstitutional, the state appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

To read more, go here.

Judge Makes Video Showing Why Magazine Ban Ruling Was Wrong

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld a California ban on high capacity gun magazines.

One judge who sits on the court, Lawrence VanDyke, posted a video on why the ruling was wrong.

According to The Truth About Guns:

Anti-gunners are making a big deal of what they called a “wildly improper“ video made by a judge on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals explaining why the court’s recent ruling in the California magazine ban case is wrong.

During the video, Judge Lawrence VanDyke said his colleagues have a “basic misunderstanding of how firearms work,” a gross understatement if there ever was one.

In the video, which can be seen here, Judge VanDyke explained how so-called “high-capacity” magazines are very common in the United States and why they should be covered as an “arm” under the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms—an opinion in direct contrast to the 9th Circuit’s 7-4 ruling on March 20 in the case Duncan v. Bonta.

Here's the video in question:

To read more, go here. 

Ninth Circuit Upholds California Ammo Magazine Ban

The old "Ninth Circus" is up to their old tricks.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the California ban on high capacity gun magazines is not unconstitutional and does not count as an "arm" under the Second Amendment.  

According to The Reload:

The court split 7-4, with the majority holding that the types of magazines covered under the ban do not count as “arms” under the Second Amendment.

“Large-capacity magazines are optional accessories to firearms, and firearms operate as intended without a large-capacity magazine,” Judge Susan Graber wrote in Duncan v. Bonta. “A large-capacity magazine is thus an accessory or accoutrement, not an ‘Arm’ in itself. Possession of a large-capacity magazine therefore falls outside the text of the Second Amendment.”

The ruling is a setback for gun-rights activists. It establishes a binding precedent in the country’s largest appellate circuit—which contains multiple states with similar bans—blessing magazine restrictions under the Second Amendment. That precedent will stand permanently unless the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) intervenes. Whether it will choose to remains an open question.

To read more, go here. 

9th Circuit Blocks CA Law Limiting Gun Purchases To One Per Month

Some good news for California gun owners came from, of all places, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The law limiting gun purchases to one every 30 days has been blocked.

The Desert Sun reported:

A 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel has blocked enforcement of a longstanding California law limiting residents to one firearm purchase every 30 days.

In March, a federal district court previously struck down the law as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, but the government sought and obtained a stay on the ruling from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals pending further legal review.

But on Thursday, a three-judge panel from the 9th Circuit reversed the stay, barring law enforcement without a court's further order.

To read more, go here. 

NRA Gun Safety Class At TRW

A discussion this morning on Facebook about the recent Ninth Circuit Court panel's ruling on gun advertising in junior sports magazines reminded me that I took the National Rifle Association gun safety class while in the Boy Scouts (Troop 158 in Los Angeles) at the TRW Space Park in Redondo Beach.

I had done target shooting prior to this with my dad and neighborhood friends at Centinela Park in Inglewood, California, so I was already familiar with handguns.

The TRW Space Park now belongs to Northrop Grumman. 

The NRA gun safety class was held in a conference room in the tallest building at the Space Park. 

Here's a photo (from a post card) of the building (the white one) and Space Park when it was still TRW:

The Boy Scouts still has a shooting sports safety program. For information,, go here.

Major 2nd Amendment Victory In Circuit Court

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (sometimes referred to as the "Ninth Circus") or at least a three-judge panel of it, got this one right.

The following is definitely a Second Amendment (and First Amendment) victory.

MSM reported:

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied a request to rehear a ruling that found California’s ban on gun advertisements in junior sports magazines likely unconstitutional.

The decision was made by a three-judge panel, stating that the ban does not directly reduce gun violence among youth and violates the First Amendment by restricting truthful advertisements about lawful gun use.

The panel’s conclusion was “that because California permits minors under supervision to possess and use firearms for hunting and other lawful activities, [the Marketing Firearms to Minors Law] facially regulates speech that concerns lawful activity and is not misleading,” Judge Kenneth Lee said.

To read more, go here. 

California’s Gun Ban In Most Public Places Is Blocked Again

A new California law (a part of Senate Bill 2) banning weapons from certain places has again been blocked.

This time, it was federal appellate panel who did the blocking.

The San Diego Union-Tribune reported:

SAN DIEGO —  The new year was supposed to usher in a controversial new California law tightly narrowing where people can carry firearms — including those licensed to carry a concealed weapon.

But instead it’s been whiplash, as courts grapple with a host of legal challenges by gun owners and advocacy groups.

A federal district court judge had blocked the law in December, calling it “sweeping, repugnant to the Second Amendment, and openly defiant of the Supreme Court.” The state appealed his ruling, and a federal appeals court said on Dec. 30 the law could go into effect. It referred the case to a special 9th Circuit merit panel.

On Saturday, a federal appellate panel again blocked the law from going into effect. Arguments before the merit panel are slated for April.

The new law, part of Senate Bill 2, bars people from bringing guns to more than two dozen specific “sensitive places,” including parks, playgrounds, museums, any sort of medical office or facility, and places of worship — churches, mosques, synagogues and such.

To read the full article, go here. 

NM Anti-Gunners Start 2023 Legislative Session

Lunatic Democrats are targeting our Second Amendment rights (again) in New Mexico.

A new bill was introduced by Rep. Patricia Roybal-Caballero that would make possessing high-capacity magazines a felony in New Mexico.

The Piñon Post reported:

On Monday, far-left New Mexico state Rep. Patricia Roybal-Caballero (D-Bernalillo) dropped the Democrats’ first anti-gun bill of the 2023 Legislative Session, H.B. 50. The bill is a magazine ban that would make violations of the bill if passed, felons.

The bill reads, “It is unlawful for a person to possess or transfer a large-capacity magazine within New Mexico, except when the person is: a resident of another state who transports a large-capacity magazine into New Mexico for use exclusively in an established shooting competition” or “a peace officer, in accordance with the policies of the peace officer’s law enforcement agency,” with multiple caveats. Other minor exceptions include being a member of the armed forces, certain manufacturers, certain armored vehicle operators, or those displaying such weapons in government-run museums or exhibits. 

It continues, “A person who violates the provisions of Subsection A of this section is guilty of a fourth degree felony and upon conviction shall be sentenced in accordance with the provisions of Section 31-18-15 NMSA 1978.”

The bill ignores the current status of similar magazine bans. 

In an article in the San Diego Union-Tribune of June 30, 2022, it stated such bans have been stayed by the U.S. Supreme Court:

In the New York case, the court’s conservative majority gave lower courts new guidance about how to evaluate gun restrictions. The justices rejected a two-step approach that appeals courts had previously used as having one step too many. They said courts assessing modern firearms regulations should just ask whether they are “consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding.”

Sending other gun cases back to lower courts gives them the opportunity to apply that new guidance.

In its order Thursday, the Supreme Court ordered the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to revisit its 7-4 ruling last year that upheld California’s law banning magazines that hold more than 10 bullets. The order adds to the San Diego-based lawsuit’s lengthy path through the courts.

A 2018 New Jersey law limits most gun owners to magazines that hold up to 10 rounds of ammunition instead of the 15-round limit in place since 1990. A lower court upheld the law.

To read more, go here. 

NRA-ILA Files "Friend of the Court" Brief In Hawaii Gun Control Case

Above, a tour bus view of the Hawaii State Capitol. Photo by Armand Vaquer.

The state of Hawaii thinks that the constitution doesn't apply to them. They have passed laws that are blatant infringements of their citizens' Second Amendment rights. Need I mention that the Democrat Party controls the state government?

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is looking into their laws (the case is Yukutake v. Shikada) and the NRA-ILA is involved. Given the history of the "Ninth Circus", I would not be surprised if this case eventually winds up in the U.S. Supreme Court.

From the NRA-ILA:

On Monday, NRA-ILA filed an amicus curiae (or friend of the court) brief in a case challenging Hawaii’s draconian permit-to-purchase and firearm-registration laws in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Aloha State does not make it easy for an individual to exercise their Second Amendment Rights. State law imposes many repetitive steps on tight deadlines. First, one needs to apply for a permit to purchase a handgun, which requires providing the Chief of Police with the handgun’s make, model, serial number, etc. If the permit is approved, the individual then has 10 days to complete the purchase. Then upon completion of the purchase, the seller inputs the handgun’s make, model, serial number etc., signs the permit, and has 48 hours to get it back to the Chief of Police. But that’s not the end of the process. The purchaser then has five days to bring the handgun into the police station for it to be inspected and registered, which is the third time that the handgun’s make, model, serial number, etc., get recorded.

These burdensome laws “were passed solely to ‘control’ how people exercise their Second Amendment rights,” the brief argues.

To read more, go here. 

California’s COVID Gun Store Shutdowns Ruled Illegal

Above, a gun store in Albuquerque. Photo by Armand Vaquer.

New Mexico Governor "Malevolent Michelle" Lujan Grisham ought to take a good hard look at a California federal court ruling.

Back in 2020, she shut down New Mexico's gun stores when the pandemic struck the state, calling them "non-essential".

California counties of Los Angeles and Ventura did the same and now a panel with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that those actions violated people's constitutional rights.

According to the Long Beach Post:

Two California counties violated the Constitution’s right to keep and bear arms when they shut down gun and ammunition stores in 2020 as nonessential businesses during the coronavirus pandemic, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday.

Officials in Los Angeles and Ventura counties had separately won lower court decisions saying gun stores were not exempt from broader shutdown orders aimed at limiting the spread of the coronavirus early in the pandemic.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected both lower court rulings.

The Second Amendment “means nothing if the government can prohibit all persons from acquiring any firearm or ammunition,” Judge Lawrence VanDyke wrote. “But that’s what happened in this case.”

Because buyers can obtain guns only by personally going to gun stores in California, Ventura County’s 48-day closure of gun shops, ammunition shops and firing ranges “wholly prevented law-abiding citizens in the County from realizing their right to keep and bear arms,” he wrote.

To read the full story, go here. 

Federal Appeals Court Upholds California Ban On Large Capacity Magazines

Well, true to form, the Ninth Circuit Court (known as the "Ninth Circus") upheld a California law banning large capacity magazines in semi-automatic firearms.

The Epoch Times reported:

A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld California’s ban on large-capacity ammunition magazines, reversing a San Diego federal judge’s rule that it was “unconstitutional” and handing a victory to Gov. Gavin Newsom and gun-control advocates.

The California law, which was enacted in 2016, bans the possession of large-capacity magazines (LCMs) that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The law also bans the manufacture and imports of LCMs.

You can earn points by sharing articles to friends. With points, you can redeem for gift cards from 100+ top brands, or other benefits. Learn more

Under the law, owners of LCMs can modify them to accept ten rounds or fewer and sell their magazines to firearm dealers or remove them from the state. The law provides several exceptions to the ban on large-capacity magazines, including possession by active or retired law enforcement officers, security guards for armored vehicles, and holders of special weapons permits.

U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez in San Diego previously blocked the ban, claiming that the law is illegal because it violates the Second Amendment right of gun owners under the U.S. Constitution.

The state government, through the law, “bans an entire class of very popular hardware—firearms that are lawful under federal law and under the laws of most states and that are commonly held by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” Benitez, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote in his 94-page ruling at the time.

A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit in August 2020 upheld District Judge Benitez’s original decision.

But an 11-member en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit of Appeals on Tuesday voted 7–4 to issue a ruling (pdf) that reverses that decision on the California law.

 To read more, go here.

US Appeals Court Rules States May Restrict Open Carry

When I saw the headline, I had a strong feeling that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals was the court who made this decision.

Naturally, I was right. It was the "Ninth Circus". This will likely be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

From The Epoch Times:

An appeals court on Wednesday ruled that states may restrict people from openly carrying firearms in public—upholding a Hawaii gun regulation that bans residents from openly carrying guns without a license.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 7-4 that restrictions on carrying guns in public except for hunting do not violate the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms.

“The government may regulate, and even prohibit, in public places—including government buildings, churches, schools, and markets—the open carrying of small arms capable of being concealed, whether they are carried concealed or openly,” Judge Jay Bybee, appointed by former President George W. Bush, wrote in his opinion (pdf) for the court’s majority.

To read more, go here. 

"9th Circus" Issues Stay, Reinstating California Ammo Restrictions

Well, apparently either Trump's appointees joined the liberals on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals or are just aren't enough of them, but the "Ninth Circus" reinstated the ammunition restrictions in Commiefornia.

From the NRA-ILA:

Late Friday night (9:46pm), the following order came out from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, granting a temporary stay on the injunction issued on Thursday, April 24, in the NRA funded case of Rhode v. Becerra. This means that the same restrictions that have been previously in effect regarding ammunition in California are back for the time being, pending further order from the court.  

Timeline: 

April 23 – 9th Circuit District Court grants preliminary injunction, suspending ammunition restrictions. 

April 24 – Friday morning, California Attorney General (state) seeks stay on the injunction order, requesting a decision by 3pm Friday. 

April 24 – Friday afternoon, 9th Circuit District Court denies the state’s motion for stay on the preliminary injunction. 

April 24 – Friday afternoon, state files notice of interlocutory appeal 

April 24 – Friday evening, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals grants the state’s emergency motion for a stay, pending further court order. 

Without a doubt, unless the U.S. Supreme Court refuses to hear the case, it will eventually end up there.

This ain't over until the fat lady sings.

To read more, go here. 

Judge Denies Stay of Injunction Striking Down Ammo Law

California leftist Attorney General Xavier Becerra is filing an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (formerly known as the "9th Circus" before President Trump appointed conservative judges) after being denied a stay of a court injunction.

The San Diego Union-Tribune reported:

A San Diego federal judge refused on Friday to delay implementing the injunction he issued a day earlier that halted enforcement of a state law requiring background checks for ammunition buyers, prompting the office of state Attorney General Xavier Becerra to head to an appeals court. 

U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez issued a lengthy ruling Thursday concluding the state law requiring a background check for ammo purchases violated the Second Amendment rights of gun owners in the state. He also said a part of the law banning bringing in ammo from other states without it first being sent through a licensed dealer violated the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. 

On Friday state lawyers filed a motion asking Benitez to immediately issue a stay of the injunction until they could file an appeal. State lawyers said the action was needed immediately because “ammunition vendors have already started selling ammunition without background checks, creating the near certainty that prohibited persons—convicted felons, violent misdemeanants, and others prohibited by law from possessing firearms and ammunition—will have easy access to ammunition.” 

But Benitez was not persuaded.

To read more, go here.