Bills Firearm bills awaiting Governor's signature (2025)

[shroom]

Not sure which bill you are referring too with "this". If any of the bills are unconstitutional, they will be challenged and overturned. This has happened before with so many different types of legislation both related to the 2nd and not. Legislators from all parties make mistakes about constitutionality and that is one of the reasons we have courts.

Will they be overturned in our lifetimes though? I'm sure plenty of people thought Roberti-Roos would be overturned when it was signed into law in 1989.

36 years later here we are, waiting and praying for the SC to hear Miller v Bonta, since the 9th will obviously rule against us, whenever the hell they deign to rule on it.

 

[USMC06RET]

Will they be overturned in our lifetimes though? I'm sure plenty of people thought Roberti-Roos would be overturned when it was signed into law in 1989.

36 years later here we are, waiting and praying for the SC to hear Miller v Bonta, since the 9th will obviously rule against us, whenever the hell they deign to rule on it.

Democracy and it's associated system of justice sometimes isn't as swift as we might like but it's far better than an authoritarian system, which could just as easily take away everything we love such as freedom of speech, guns, prohibitions on search and seizure and self-incrimination, etc. Thirty-Six years might seem like a long time but legislation is designed to last centuries. I'd much rather the courts consider legislative challenges carefully than have them make kangaroo court judgements based on sham proceedings with predetermined outcomes and disregard for due process because that kind of excessive haste is a door that swings in both directions with tremendous force and unfairness.

 

[bbp00]

make kangaroo court judgements based on sham proceedings with predetermined outcomes

Isn't that exactly what 9th circuit is doing in regards to 2A?

 

[USMC06RET]

Isn't that exactly what 9th circuit is doing in regards to 2A?

Not when you consider how the Ninth circuit ruled in Nguyen v. Bonta, where they struck down the one gun per month law codified in California Penal Code § 27535(a).

 

[bbp00]

Not when you consider how the Ninth circuit ruled in Nguyen v. Bonta, where they struck down the one gun per month law codified in California Penal Code § 27535(a).

Only because State did not appeal. That's one and only out of how many?
And the ruling that you can't ration constitutional rights is ignored by state legislature with 3 in 30.

 

[USMC06RET]

Only because State did not appeal. That's one and only out of how many?
And the ruling that you can't ration constitutional rights is ignored by state legislature with 3 in 30.

Thought we were discussing the 9th circuit?

The 9th also struck down the ammunition background check requirement in their adjudication of Rhode v. Bonta.

Regardless, as you can (for the time being) freely criticize the government and the courts, you can thank the courts for upholding those rights, at least for now.

 

[1911-CV]

...

The 9th also struck down the ammunition background check requirement in their adjudication of Rhode v. Bonta.

...

The 9th is considering a request for an en-banc review (probably not optional for them to consider that request). Too early to credit the ammunition background being struck down as the state may have more bites at the apple with the 9th.

 

[USMC06RET]

The 9th is considering a request for an en-banc review (probably not optional for them to consider that request). Too early to credit the ammunition background being struck down as the state may have more bites at the apple with the 9th.

Still, the 9th did strike down the law.

In today's day and age, it appears no case is final until it is either refused by SCOTUS, upheld or overruled by SCOTUS. Now that SCOTUS has become a venue where the highest briber wins, it's more like the TV shows, "Let's Make a Deal" or "The Price is Right"; motorhomes, vacations, home improvement "loans" and, there are long lines of contestants just hoping to get through the doors.

 

[bbp00]

Thought we were discussing the 9th circuit?

And the state laws as per thread title. Unconstitutional laws upheld by kangaroo 9th circuit

The 9th also struck down the ammunition background check requirement in their adjudication of Rhode v. Bonta.

Useless without mandate and it's almost certain it will be reversed by En Banc hearing.

Regardless, as you can (for the time being) freely criticize the government and the courts, you can thank the courts for upholding those rights, at least for now.

Seems that 9th circuit is very selective with which rights to uphold. Certainly not 2A.

 

[1911-CV]

Still, the 9th did strike down the law.

In today's day and age, it appears no case is final until it is either refused by SCOTUS, upheld or overruled by SCOTUS. Now that SCOTUS has become a venue where the highest briber wins, it's more like the TV shows, "Let's Make a Deal" or "The Price is Right"; motorhomes, vacations, home improvement "loans" and, there are long lines of contestants just hoping to get through the doors.

Judges within the 9th circuit struck down the standard capacity magazine ban over and over until the en-banc twisted its own logic on whether magazines were part of a firearm and then invented an historical right of the government to protect its citizens to uphold that statute. Now our last hope on that front is the Supreme Court. I'm just saying don't give the 9th credit for striking something down until its actually finished with their part of the review process.

 

[shroom]

Anyone remember Duncan v Bonta? Somehow Palpatine returned, I mean somehow the exact same panel that heard the case before heard it again after the SC gvr'd it. Also somehow the majority opinion was practically word for word with it's previous opinion, totally ignoring Bruen. Kangaroo court indeed.

The 9th "striking down" the ammo bg check is meaningless because they didn't actually strike it down. The 3 judge panel ruled for us, but as the case has been appealed to be heard en banc that doesn't matter. High chances are that at the en banc hearing we will lose.

 

[USMC06RET]

Judges within the 9th circuit struck down the standard capacity magazine ban over and over until the en-banc twisted its own logic on whether magazines were part of a firearm and then invented an historical right of the government to protect its citizens to uphold that statute. Now our last hope on that front is the Supreme Court. I'm just saying don't give the 9th credit for striking something down until its actually finished with their part of the review process.

I do believe that the 9th circuit and most other circuit courts in the nation (with the exception of the 5th) strive to protect and defend the constitution. Sometimes they rule the way we like and sometimes they don't.

Remember, SCOTUS declined to hear challenges to state laws banning high-capacity magazines in Maryland and Rhode Island in June 2025, allowing those laws to remain in effect. The court also left intact Washington D.C.'s ban on large-capacity magazines and an assault-style weapons ban in Maryland.

Sometimes laypeople feel a law is unconstitutional because they don't 'like' the law. The people chosen to adjudicate such issues frequently have much greater legal knowledge and experience and sometimes they rule the way we like and sometimes they don't. That's how the process works in a constitutional republic.

 

[USMC06RET]

Useless without mandate and it's almost certain it will be reversed by En Banc hearing.

We'll have to wait and see if your crystal ball is accurate.

Seems that 9th circuit is very selective with which rights to uphold. Certainly not 2A.

I would hope every court is very selective about adjudicating every issue. I'm NOT a single issue person unless you're talking about authoritarianism. I find the 2A is important but no more important than the 1st, 4th, 5th, 13th, 14th, etc.

The historical purpose of the 2nd amendment was to ensure the existence of a well-regulated militia for national defense and to prevent federal overreach and tyranny. In that context, the 2nd amendment has proven itself less than effective. The last time purely civilian militias were used to aid in the national defense against a foreign invader was during the war of 1812 and those militias, to put it politely, were more of a hinderance to the defensive effort. So, to those who say the 2nd is the most important because without it, we wouldn't even have a constitution, I say; you couldn't prove that by what's currently happening in our nation.

Only in 2008 was the idea of self-defense as a core component of the Second Amendment definitively established by the Supreme Court in the case District of Columbia v. Heller.

 

[bbp00]

I do believe that the 9th circuit and most other circuit courts in the nation (with the exception of the 5th) strive to protect and defend the constitution. Sometimes they rule the way we like and sometimes they don't.

You're beliefs are not supported by the facts. Read this: https://saf.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Yukutake-Amicus-Filed.pdf
Start with page 4, last paragraph. They summarized 9th circuit anti-gun shenanigans much better then I could.

Only in 2008 was the idea of self-defense as a core component of the Second Amendment definitively established by the Supreme Court in the case District of Columbia v. Heller.

There were always two components to the 2nd. Always. Just because court had to rule on it recently, doesn't mean it did not exists. 2nd amendment was always clear on this.

In today's day and age, it appears no case is final until it is either refused by SCOTUS, upheld or overruled by SCOTUS. Now that SCOTUS has become a venue where the highest briber wins, it's more like the TV shows, "Let's Make a Deal" or "The Price is Right"; motorhomes, vacations, home improvement "loans" and, there are long lines of contestants just hoping to get through the doors.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sometimes laypeople feel a law is unconstitutional because they don't 'like' the law. The people chosen to adjudicate such issues frequently have much greater legal knowledge and experience and sometimes they rule the way we like and sometimes they don't. That's how the process works in a constitutional republic.

So which is it?

 

[USMC06RET]

You're beliefs are not supported by the facts. Read this: https://saf.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Yukutake-Amicus-Filed.pdf
Start with page 4, last paragraph. They summarized 9th circuit anti-gun shenanigans much better then I could.

There were always two components to the 2nd. Always. Just because court had to rule on it recently, doesn't mean it did not exists. 2nd amendment was always clear on this.


So which is it?

In summation, my opinion is the controlling majority on SCOTUS is corrupt. However, most of the lower circuit courts, with the exception of the fifth, still behave in a judicious manner.

As for the amicus brief, I have read this one previously, thanks for sharing it.

 

[treelogger]

The 9th also struck down the ammunition background check requirement in their adjudication of Rhode v. Bonta.

And it also ruled that the 2A is incorporated against the states (in one of the Nordyke cases), before the Supreme Court did it in MacDonald. The oft-repeated trope that the 9th circuit is anti-gun is not completely correct.

Will they be overturned in our lifetimes though? I'm sure plenty of people thought Roberti-Roos would be overturned when it was signed into law in 1989.

In 1989, the controlling case for the 2A was Miller. In those days, it was generally thought that the 2A only applies to the militia, not to individuals. Note how few court cases used the 2A itself to fight for gun rights back then; even the ones that gun right advocates won (such as Harrott) were not 2A based. This completely changed with Heller in 2007 or 2008, when Justice Scalia's opinion stated clearly that the 2A applies to individuals, at least as far as self-defense in the home is concerned. That decision (plus incorporation in MacDonald) was a complete sea change for 2A jurisprudence. Heller is really what the expansion of gun rights is based on.

Now, originalists might claim "but the 2A never changed, it always meant what I want it to mean". Sorry, that's not the way our legal system works (unless your first name is Clarence). The constitution and tradition give the courts the responsibility to interpret what laws and the constitution mean (see Marbury). After Miller, the 2A meant one thing. After Heller, it meant a different thing. Panta rhei.

You're beliefs are not supported by the facts. Read this: https://saf.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Yukutake-Amicus-Filed.pdf

That document is written not by a court, but by one of the more out-there advocacy organizations. Actually, also one of the more corrupt ones; the SAF is to a large extent a machine to enrich Alan Gottlieb and his family; doing 2A advocacy is a means to an end. And whipping up the anger of the true believers is good for SAFs fundraising success.

 

[Dvrjon]

That document is written not by a court, but by one of the more out-there advocacy organizations. Actually, also one of the more corrupt ones; the SAF is to a large extent a machine to enrich Alan Gottlieb and his family; doing 2A advocacy is a means to an end. And whipping up the anger of the true believers is good for SAFs fundraising success.

While I don’t disagree with your assessment of SAF, they are not the sole authors of the amicus brief presented. Until recently, Konstadinos Moros was a lead attorney at Michel and Associates in LA, working for the CRPA. He is now with SAF. This amicus brief is a joint effort by the SAF, CRPA and the 2A Law Center.

Having said that, the brief is opining for the amici interest which, based upon one’s viewpoint or interests, may or may not be persuasive regardless of the financial status of the authors.

 

[bbp00]

And it also ruled that the 2A is incorporated against the states (in one of the Nordyke cases), before the Supreme Court did it in MacDonald. The oft-repeated trope that the 9th circuit is anti-gun is not completely correct.

14th amendment section 1 is clear as a day. It's unfortunate, that every so often, SCOTUS has to point that out.
As far as 9th circuit and its anti-2A goes, not completely but mostly. Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis.

In 1989, the controlling case for the 2A was Miller. In those days, it was generally thought that the 2A only applies to the militia, not to individuals.

It requires a lot of creativity to say that 2A does not apply to individuals. Heller decision did not change that. Only reaffirmed that individual rights exist.
From US vs Miller:
"These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

Now, originalists might claim "but the 2A never changed, it always meant what I want it to mean". Sorry, that's not the way our legal system works (unless your first name is Clarence). The constitution and tradition give the courts the responsibility to interpret what laws and the constitution mean (see Marbury). After Miller, the 2A meant one thing. After Heller, it meant a different thing. Panta rhei.

See above. Heller did not change the meaning, just reaffirmed.

That document is written not by a court, but by one of the more out-there advocacy organizations. Actually, also one of the more corrupt ones; the SAF is to a large extent a machine to enrich Alan Gottlieb and his family; doing 2A advocacy is a means to an end. And whipping up the anger of the true believers is good for SAFs fundraising success.

ad hominem fallacy

 

[jspringer1427]

FFL for Barrels transfers? Next it will be magazines

everything except the receiver has now been declared "not an arm" and "not constitutionally protected" ammo, magazines, barrels, triggers, stocks, everything. Eventually brass, primers, powder, etc.

 

[star.3d]

everything except the receiver has now been declared "not an arm" and "not constitutionally protected" ammo, magazines, barrels, triggers, stocks, everything.

I think this is why a lot of people are looking for the SCOTUS to issue clearer guidance post Bruen. You might find Chuck Michel's recent podcast appearance interesting (ignore the click-bait title, there's no "BIG" news):