The Final Two 9th Circuit Gun Decisions of 2024

Yesterday, Monday, December 30, 2024, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals published its final two decisions in cases involving guns.

The first decision involved the Federal law that permanently disbars persons convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence from possessing firearms, and the second involved a dispute over what constitutes an arrest when police see a handgun on the floor of an automobile in a state where that is legal.

The first decision is well written and meticulous and leaves no question as to why the three-judge panel reached its decision, a decision they would rather have gone the other way were it not for binding prior precedents.

The second decision does not explain why it reached its conclusion, and more importantly, the decision does not explain how future three-judge panels and district court judges are to comply with what is now a binding circuit precedent. Moreso, given that the facts laid out in the decision do not justify the panel’s conclusion under already binding prior 9th circuit precedents.

First, the well-written decision by 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Morgan B. Christen. She is certainly no friend of the Second Amendment, but if there were a candidate for the most intelligent Court of Appeals judge, she would be the one to bet on. The case is US v. Michal Blake DeFrance No. 23-2409.

The first three paragraphs of the opinion summary succinctly describe the case’s what and why, but I will take a stab at an even simpler explanation. In short, if one is convicted of a state law crime of domestic violence, and that state law crime is broader than the Federal definition, even if the state has never prosecuted someone under the broader definition, then the conviction does not qualify as a crime of domestic violence under Federal law. Not even if the crime one committed, such as beating one’s wife or girlfriend, does qualify as a crime of domestic violence under Federal law. You can view the oral argument below.

You can read the opinion (and concurrence) at this link.

The second case is US v. Larry Send In. The opinion is by Judge Gould and was joined by 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Bumatay and District Court Judge Michael Seabright, the latter of whom is no friend to the Second Amendment.

A fun fact about the Fourth Amendment is that from 1833 to 1961, it did not apply to the states. That did not mean police could stop, search, and/or arrest anyone they wanted. Under American common law, which we inherited from English common law, one could use force, including deadly force, to resist an unlawful arrest. That was the rule in California until 1957 when the California legislature repealed that centuries-old common law right. The California Supreme Court upheld the repeal in 1970.

Incorporating the Fourth Amendment right against the states in 1961 means the courts have had far more opportunities in 64 years to poke holes in the right. The decision in this case is yet another hole punched in the right.

Another fun fact is that California once had a bright-line rule. If you were stopped by the police and not free to go, you were under arrest.

The Federal Courts invented the notion that one can be stopped and handcuffed without it being an arrest. It is a “detention,” in which cases often turn on whether or not the detention was lawful and, in this particular case, at what point an arrest occurs. The California Supreme Court has abandoned its bright-line rule for the murky waters of the Federal Courts.

Of course, police forces as we know them today did not exist in the United States until the early 20th century. Before World War II, most arrests were made by private citizens, and private citizens likewise made most criminal prosecutions.

It was not until the 1970s that the US Supreme Court gave prosecutors and judges “absolute immunity” from civil prosecution in the Federal Courts, but I digress.

Under modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, judges look to the totality of the facts in making their decisions. In this case, the district court judge suppressed the gun found in Mr. In’s car, but the panel reversed. Why? I don’t know. Professor Shaun Martin at the University of San Diego School of Law doesn’t seem to know either. He wrote about the case on his blog.

When you read the decision, keep in mind that lying to a police officer is not in and of itself a crime, and Mr. In’s lying to police about having a gun in his car was not probable cause for an arrest, according to the panel. Indeed, none of the facts of the case viewed in isolation or the totality of the circumstances constituted probable cause for an arrest, and if Mr. In had, in fact, been arrested instead of detained for officer safety, then the gun would have been suppressed.

Neither police officer safety nor public safety is a magic talisman. But despite this decision conflicting with prior circuit precedents, it is doubtful that an en banc petition will be granted in this case. There are just too many judges in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals who don’t care a fig about the Fourth Amendment, especially when the case involves guns.

You can view the oral argument below.

You can read the opinion at this link.

Wisconsin Rule Banning Guns While Fishing is Reeled In

Anglers in Wisconsin can now legally carry firearms while fishing, following a recent decision by the state’s Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules. The Republican-controlled committee voted 8-2 on Dec. 17 to temporarily repeal a long-standing Department of Natural Resources (DNR) rule that prohibited guns “that might be used for the purpose of fishing.” The DNR has indicated it will permanently repeal the rule as part of a lawsuit settlement, mostly because it just stupid.

Legal Challenge Spurs Change

The rule’s repeal stems from a lawsuit filed by the conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty on behalf of Sheboygan Falls resident Travis Kobs. The lawsuit argued the regulation was unconstitutional, effectively creating a blanket firearm ban on state waterways.

DNR attorney Chandra Harvey explained to the committee that the rule, dating back to at least the 1950s, was originally designed to prevent the illegal shooting of fish. However, the passage of Wisconsin’s concealed carry law in 2011 brought the rule into conflict with state statutes protecting the right to carry firearms.

“The regulation no longer aligns with current state law,” Harvey told the committee.

Divided Opinions on Gun Access

The committee’s decision was not without controversy. Democratic Senators Kelda Roys of Madison and Chris Larson of Milwaukee voted against the repeal, citing concerns over increased gun access, a seemingly blanket argument by Democrats on any committee.

“I think there are still good reasons why we should not have more guns in more places, especially given recent events in my district,” Roys said.

Larson questioned whether the DNR had issued any citations under the rule. Harvey confirmed that no citations had been issued for carrying guns while fishing, prompting Republican Senator Steve Nass of Whitewater to remark, “Nobody’s pulling their pistol out to shoot fish. So, hallelujah.”

Looking Ahead

The DNR will likely permanently repeal the firearm restriction for anglers, marking a significant shift away from a law that effectively served no purpose and never even needed to be enforced. On a side note for those looking how to properly carry while fishing GunfightersINC, which makes holsters, even has an article on how to fish while carrying and what holsters are best.

Firearms Ownership Is As Feminist As Feminism Gets

In today’s world, where the term “feminism” has been co-opted by many to push various political agendas, it’s time we reclaimed its true essence: equality and empowerment for women. And one of the most profound ways women can achieve these ideals is through the ownership of firearms. Yes, you read that right; firearms ownership is not just compatible with feminism — it’s a cornerstone of it.

Let’s start with the basics. The Second Amendment isn’t gender-specific; it’s meant for all people, which includes women. The very principle of the right to bear arms is rooted in the notion of personal liberty and defense, something that feminism champions. If feminism is about giving women control over their lives and bodies, then what better way to do that than to equip them with the means to protect themselves?

The statistics on domestic abuse are sobering. The anecdotes are horrifying. The extent and severity of it remain abstract in my mind because it’s not a thing that happens in my social and familial circles. But the stories I’ve read are downright scary. (For details on how bad it can get, read Shirley Watral’s great book, “Heels to Holster.”)

But here’s a transformative shift: firearms can also be a tool for women to defend themselves. Anti-gunners have completely politicized the data on defensive gun use and forcibly suppressed truths inconvenient to their narrative, so it’s hard to get clarity on women’s use of firearms in self-defense, let alone domestic abuse. Despite the fog of lies created by anti-gunners, there are plenty of “anecdata” showing that armed women can and do deter or stop violence effectively. Click on the below link for more than a dozen such defensive incidents that happened in just a couple of weeks:

And it’s not just about self-defense. Firearms ownership for women is a statement of autonomy. Despite outliers, women physically tend to be the weaker sex. Traditionally, society is shaped in a way that women need protection. By owning a firearm, a woman declares, “I am my own protector.” This shifts the narrative from damsel in distress to a self-reliant individual.

Repeating what I’ve written before, when evil makes a move, to stop it as quickly as possible with as few casualties as possible. This isn’t just about men; it’s about every individual, including women, having the tools to defend their lives and those around them.

The empowerment doesn’t stop at physical safety. There’s a psychological aspect to it. Women who are trained in firearms use often report a newfound confidence. They’re not just learning how to handle a gun; they’re exercising one of the greatest types of responsibility and discipline that comes with it. This education is as feminist as it gets — women being in control, not just of their weapons but of their lives.

The narrative of firearms being a male domain is slowly but surely changing. A recent op-ed in The Hill (archived link) shows just that:

Women are leading a surge in gun ownership — here’s why
by Beth Alcazar

According to Gallup, gun ownership has surged dramatically among women, particularly among Republican women, where ownership jumped from 19 percent in 2007-2012 to 33 percent in 2019-2024. This reflects a broader trend: Women are not just buying guns for recreational purposes, they are increasingly turning to firearms as a way to protect themselves in uncertain times. […]

But it’s also about freedom, choice and personal empowerment. Women are no longer relying solely on traditional means of protection or waiting for others to ensure their safety. Firearms ownership gives women the power to defend themselves in a way that aligns with their own sense of security. This shift is part of a larger cultural change, one that values personal responsibility, self-reliance and the right to protect oneself. Women are taking control of their own narratives and shaping the future of gun ownership in the process.

Despite anti-gunners’ claims that firearms increase violence, firearms, in the hands of responsible, law-abiding women, serve as a deterrent. The very presence of a gun can de-escalate situations that might otherwise turn violent. It’s about balance, not about arming everyone for conflict, and ensuring that women have the same opportunities for self-defense as men.

Firearms ownership isn’t just a right; it’s a feminist act. The right to bear arms is a fundamental aspect of women’s liberation. Here’s to a future where feminism and firearms go hand in hand, where every woman is as safe as she is free.

New CCW Report Says Decline Reflects ‘Constitutional Carry’ Impact

The number of active concealed carry licenses declined again, possibly because 29 states now allow permitless carry.

 

For the second year in a row, the number of active concealed carry permits and licenses in the U.S. has declined slightly, but the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) suggests the drop reflects the impact of “Constitutional Carry” permitless states, so it’s not as though fewer people are packing heat.

“Last year,” CPRC reported, “the number of permit holders dropped by 0.38 million to 21.46 million – the second year in a row with a decline. It hit a high of 22.01 million in 2022. The main reason for the drop is that the number of permits declined gradually in the Constitutional Carry states even though it is clear that more people are legally carrying.”

CPRC, based in Missoula, Mont., has been tracking concealed carry patterns for several years. Its annual report is published in the fall, typically in late October or early November.

Among this year’s revelations:

  • Twenty-nine states have now adopted “Constitutional (permitless) Carry” for their entire state, meaning that a permit is no longer required. Because of these Constitutional Carry states, the concealed carry permits number does not paint a full picture of how many people are legally carrying across the nation. Many residents still choose to obtain permits so that they can carry in other states that have reciprocity agreements, but while permits are increasing in the non-Constitutional Carry states, they fell in the Constitutional Carry ones even though more people are clearly carrying in those states.
  • In 2024, women made up 29.1% of permit holders in the 14 states that provide data by gender. Seven states had data from 2012 to 2023/2024, and permit numbers grew 111.9% faster for women than for men.
  • Five states now have over 1 million permit holders: Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and Texas. Florida is the top states with 2.46 million permits. Alabama has fallen below 1 million permit holders this year, but it has become a Constitutional Carry state since January 1, 2023, meaning that people no longer need a permit to carry.
  • Three states that have detailed race and gender data for at least a decade show remarkably larger increases in permits for minorities compared to whites. In Texas, black females saw an 8.4 times greater percentage increase in permits than white males from 2002 to 2023. Oklahoma data from 2002 to 2023 indicated that the increase of licenses approved for Asians was slightly over four times the rate for whites. North Carolina had black permits increase twice as fast as whites from 1996 till 2016.
  • From 2015 to 2021/2023/2024, in the four states that provide data by race over that time period, the number of Asian people with permits increased 219.2% % faster than the number of whites with permits. Blacks appear to be the group that has experienced the largest increase in permitted concealed carry, growing 283.9% % faster than whites.
  • At least 8.2% of American adults have permits. Outside of the restrictive states of California and New York, about 9.8% of adults have a permit.

In sixteen states, more than 10% of adults have permits. Oregon has fallen slightly below 10% this year. Indiana has the highest concealed carry rate — 23.1%.  Alabama is second with 20.5%, and Colorado is third with 17.7%, followed by Pennsylvania (15.88%) and Georgia (13.55%).

The 73-page report said this year saw two more states join the permitless carry column—South Carolina and Louisiana—bringing the total to 29, and that’s a majority of states. By no small coincidence, holdout states are controlled by Democrats.

Another BFA-backed bill headed to governor, provides civil immunity for self-defense for nonprofits

Another piece of legislation supported by Buckeye Firearms Association has passed both the Ohio House and Senate and is headed to the governor for his signature.

Senate Bill 32, sponsored by Sen. Tim Schaffer (R-Lancaster), provides civil immunity to a person who acts in self-defense and protects members and/or guests of a nonprofit under certain circumstances.

Once it takes effect, the new law:

  • Specifies that the immunities currently provided for nonprofit corporations for any of the following also apply to a for-profit corporation that leases its property to the nonprofit corporation or permits its property to be used by the nonprofit corporation for any purpose: Injury, death, or loss to person or property allegedly caused by or related to a concealed handgun licensee bringing a handgun onto the premises or to an event of the nonprofit corporation; injury, death, or loss to person or property allegedly caused by or related to a decision to permit a licensee to bring, or prohibit a licensee from bringing, a handgun onto the premises or to an event of the nonprofit corporation.
  • Generally grants civil immunity to a person for certain injuries allegedly caused by the person acting in self-defense or defense of another during the commission, or imminent commission, of an offense of violence to protect the members or guests of a nonprofit corporation under certain circumstances.
  • Specifies that a person who approaches or enters a nonprofit corporation’s premises or event with intent to commit an offense of violence is presumed liable for any injury, death, or loss to person or property resulting from an act of self-defense or defense of another against that person.

Earlier this month, the Ohio Senate voted to send amended Senate Bill 58 to Gov. Mike DeWine’s desk — legislation that would prohibit requiring firearm liability insurance or being required to pay a fee for the possession of a firearm, part of a firearm, its components, its ammunition, or a knife.

Senate Bill 148, which was amended into SB 58, prohibits financial institutions from tracking firearms purchases and to prohibit government entities from maintaining a registry of firearms or firearm owners.

Both SB 58, sponsored by Sens. Terry Johnson (R-McDermott) and Theresa Gavarone (R-Huron), and SB 148, sponsored by Sen. Terry Johnson, fight recent efforts by gun control advocates to make gun ownership more expensive and less private for law-abiding gun owners instead of cracking down on the actual criminal misuse of firearms.

BFA has supported all three bills since the beginning of the legislative session and has testified in both the House and Senate.

Buckeye Firearms Association thanks the House and Senate for passing these important bills and urges Gov. DeWine to sign them into law immediately. It is time to stop trying to punish and infringe the rights of ordinary, law-abiding gun owners for the acts of criminals.

The Left considers the fight over free speech to be a political death struggle, and they are right about that. If anything deserves to be strangled in its crib it is the Left’s current assault on the First Amendment.
–Thomas DiLorenzo

Everyone seems to wonder about Carter, when he was just another politician, though one with the narcissistic mile-wide-and-deep ego needed to want to be POTUS.

The Under- and Over-Estimated Jimmy Carter, RIP

The public appearance last fall of a senile Jimmy Carter was one of the worst cases of public elder abuse I’ve ever seen. It was ghoulish of his family to wheel him out in such an undignified condition in service of a political stunt on behalf of the Democratic Party, even if Carter wanted to bask in the glow of knowing that soon he would no longer be regarded as America’s worst modern president after Joe Biden’s ignominious end.

I generally disdain speaking ill of the recently departed, and there are some aspects of real genius to the Carter story, especially his insight into how an obscure figure could rise fast and win the presidency out of the ashes of Watergate in 1976. And we can expect a flood of encomiums in the days ahead about how Carter was an unappreciated president, and above all that he was America’s greatest ex-president.

In fact this story line has been taking shape for at least 25 years now. As disastrous as his presidency was, many Americans came to have a warm spot in their heart for Carter, sympathizing with his intentions, admiring his good works such as Habitat for Humanity, fighting to eradicate horrible diseases in the Third World, and hopeful about his globetrotting efforts on behalf of peace.  People magazine, which Carter criticized during his presidency for its focus on self-absorbed celebrity, wrote about him 20 years ago: “Almost everyone agrees that Jimmy Carter was not our best President, but as former Presidents go, he’s tops,” while Time magazine wrote that Carter is the “consensus best ex-President.” Carter’s former chief of staff Jack Watson remarked effusively that Carter is “the only man in American history who used the United States presidency as a stepping-stone to greatness.” Howard Baker said in the 1980s that “history will be kind to Jimmy Carter.”

I’ll leave to another time evaluating both his presidency and ex-presidency, and for the moment reflect merely on how Carter’s character and capacities were both underestimated and overestimated from the very beginning and continuing to this day.

Continue reading “”