The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), along with several other Second Amendment advocacy groups and individuals, last week filed a “certificate” or “request for review” of California's gun show ban. .
At issue is the legal perversion that the notoriously liberal and anti-gun 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had to appeal to in order to declare California's ban constitutional. The court faced previous case law that declared the “offering” of firearms at public gun shows to be illegal. Venues such as San Diego's Del Mar Fairgrounds were protected by the First Amendment.
So the court took a “workaround.” An “offer'' was protected, but an “acceptance'' of that “offer'' was not.
From the request:
To circumvent this precedent and its rationale, the panel (of three judges) declared that any speech constituting “acceptance” in the formation of a contract is absolutely not protected by the (First Amendment). We took the unprecedented step of doing so. …
The Court's apparent willingness to defy the Second Amendment ruling and the unprecedented creation of a new category of unprotected speech are the basis for granting this petition.
unhealthy reasoning
The Ninth Circuit breaks new ground in the world of language fantasy.
The Challenged Ordinance, which prohibits gun shows on any California-owned public property, including the Del Mar Fairgrounds, simply prohibits “contracts for the sale of any firearm or ammunition” on state property. There is only.
On its face, the wording merely specifies the moment at which a binding contract is formally concluded. Therefore, the statute does not prohibit offers for sale of firearms (on public property). An offer alone does not form a contract, and a contract is “completed only when an offer is made and accepted” (quote from a previous case).
Because acceptance determines when a contract becomes binding, the Challenges Act prohibits accepting offers to sell firearms or ammunition on state land.
Our investigation is simplified by the limited scope of the challenged statute, as acceptance of the complaint is not entitled to First Amendment protection.
Acceptance of an offer is likewise an act without expression, since it is simply the act of formally consummating such a transaction.
Needs review
SAF's request makes clear what the High Court must do. The question must be answered: “Is the distinction between pure speech and commercial (speech) outdated?''
The conclusion is as follows.
The courts that committed the following errors (the Ninth Circuit and its lower courts) did not even pretend to adhere to the rule of law as it was correctly stated.
They laid waste to the First Amendment by authorizing the censorship of communications necessary for the commerce of legitimate goods. Judicial enactment makes “acceptance” made at the time of contract formation unprotected speech in the Ninth Circuit.
SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut said, “California's laws and policies are being used to prevent gun owners, who are honest, peaceful citizens, from congregating on public property and conducting lawful commerce.'' ” he declared.
He continued:
If the state is allowed to continue (with prohibitions on these constitutional violations), neither the First nor the Second Amendment can escape California's legal restraints.
We expect the (Supreme) Court to grant recognition.
The Supreme Court is scheduled to review a long list of such requests on Friday, Dec. 13, and announce which it will consider in its next term next Monday.
