By Dave Workman
Editor-In-Chief
A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last Friday handed California Attorney General Rob Bonta and the Giffords Law Center (GLC), a gun prohibition group, a defeat when it ruled they lacked standing to file a lawsuit against the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives seeking more restrictive regulations regarding so-called “ghost guns.”
The 18-page decision may be read here.
Writing for the court, Circuit Judge Consuelo M. Callahan, a George W. Bush appointee, observed, “Although California and GLC expended resources to combat the spread and use of ghost guns after enactment of the Final Rule, those expenditures were based on their predictions…But we cannot ‘endorse standing theories that rest on speculation about the decisions of independent actors . . . particularly speculation about future unlawful conduct.’ Because California and GLC assert theories that rest on such speculation, neither has standing here. We thus vacate the district court’s order and remand with instructions to dismiss the case for lack of standing.”
The ruling comes from what AOL.com described as a “court with a liberal reputation.” The Ninth Circuit also has a reputation for rehearing Second Amendment cases before a full en banc panel, and reversing pro-gun-rights rulings.
Kostas Moros, director of Legal Research and Education at the Second Amendment Foundation, posted on X “In a rare instance of Ninth Circuit sanity in a gun-related case, the panel unanimously ruled there is no standing, and overruled the ridiculous district court ruling saying otherwise. Two Biden judges on this panel.” The judges to whom he refers are Holly A. Thomas and Anthony D. Johnstone. The panel was unanimous.
According to a summary included in the ruling, “The Final Rule effectively extended the reach of the Gun Control Act (GCA), which regulates a wide range of activities involving firearms, to cover some frames and receivers that previously went unregulated because they were either partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional. The Final Rule offered some nonexclusive examples. Relevant to this litigation, Example 4 stated that a ‘billet or blank of an AR-15 variant receiver without critical interior areas having been indexed, machined, or formed that is not sold, distributed, or possessed with instructions, jigs, templates, equipment, or tools such that it may readily be completed is not a receiver.’ Plaintiffs challenged the regulation’s failure to extend the GCA to even more partially complete firearm receivers that they think should be included.”
Interestingly, amicus briefs were submitted by Democrat attorneys general from several states. Theya re all listed in the ruling.
Judge Callahan explained the shortcomings of California’s and GLC’s complaint.
“California’s evidence falls short because it speaks to the problem of ghost guns generally, she wrote, “offering no data regarding the specific unregulated products subject to Example 4. The declaration asserts that ‘the vast majority of these ghost guns were assembled using commercially-available firearms precursor parts,’ including ‘approximately 15-20%’ of ghost guns made with unfinished receivers possibly subject to Example 4, but California’s evidence fails to distinguish products that are now regulated under the GCA by the Final Rule from those that are not.” In GLC’s case, Judge Callahan observed, “GLC’s theory of harm, which relies on a declaration submitted by its chief of staff along with supporting records, has the same causation flaws as does California’s theory. GLC’s evidence does not isolate Example 4 products from ghost guns generally, much less show how the Final Rule and Example 4 will work together to predictably cause an uptick in harm caused by ghost guns made from the relevant unfinished receivers, to which GLC claims it must respond. Nearly all of its documented expenditures and activities also predate the Final Rule. Accordingly, for the same reasons as California, GLC fails to establish causation and thus lacks standing.”
