In a remarkable dissent that should echo through the halls of American jurisprudence, Judge Lawrence VanDyke of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals called out what many see as a tactical maneuver to undermine Second Amendment rights. The recent case, Teeter v. Lopez, which initially celebrated a win for Second Amendment advocates, ended in a devious twist that deserves a closer look.
The Butterfly Knife Ban and the Ninth Circuit’s Antics
The case originated from Hawaii’s ban on butterfly knives, which was challenged as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit initially agreed, marking a significant victory for the right to keep and bear arms.
However, the full court’s decision to reexamine the case “en banc” (a term used when an entire appellate court hears a case) effectively erased the panel’s pro-Second Amendment decision.
Judge VanDyke’s dissent exposes a concerning pattern within the Ninth Circuit: strategically avoiding solid precedents that favor the Second Amendment. By vacating the 3-judge panel’s decision upon taking it en banc, the court not only prevented it from being cited as precedent but also set the stage for potential legal backpedaling by the state of Hawaii.
Click the link to read the whole article: Judge Calls Out 9th Circuit’
