Court rules California county’s gun store shutdown order for COVID-19 was unconstitutional

The coronavirus pandemic cannot be an excuse to shut down gun stores, a federal appeals court ruled last week, delivering a belated spanking to a California county that shuttered stores and firing ranges in the early days of the virus.

Los Angeles County and Ventura County both imposed shutdown orders in 2020, with Ventura’s closure lasting 48 days and Los Angeles’ lasting 11 days.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in two rulings last Thursday, said those orders left gun owners without a way to obtain ammunition or practice at firing ranges and denied those seeking to be owners a chance to obtain weapons — all in violation of the right to bear arms under the Constitution’s Second Amendment.

“Neither pandemic nor even war wipes away the Constitution,” wrote Judge Andrew J. Kleinfeld, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, in a concurring opinion.

The shutdowns happened even as the counties allowed other business. Ventura County, for example, let hardware stores, bicycle shops and boatyards remain open, and the county allowed people to go golfing. The county never explained why those activities were more “essential” than firearms purchases or practice, the appeals court said.

Those who violated the shutdown orders faced arrest and jail.

The ruling comes as the U.S. enters its third year of dealing with the coronavirus pandemic. The shutdowns of the early days sparked massive legal battles with houses of worship, in particular, arguing that closing their doors was a violation of Americans’ religious rights.

In the case of the California gun orders, lower courts had upheld the county policies, finding they were a fair approach to a fast-moving health crisis.

The appeals court, in its ruling, said policies infringing on core constitutional rights must meet a higher standard than that. The policies must be narrowly tailored to meet a compelling government interest. The court ruled that neither county offered that kind of justification.

The ruling was 3-0. All three judges were appointed by Republican presidents — a rarity on the famously slanted 9th Circuit.

Indeed, Judge Lawrence VanDyke, who wrote the chief opinion for the panel, also wrote a separate opinion predicting that his colleagues will demand what’s known as an en banc review of the panel’s decision and will eventually vote to overturn the ruling.

“Our circuit has ruled on dozens of Second Amendment cases, and without fail has ultimately blessed every gun regulation challenged, so we shouldn’t expect anything less here,” Judge VanDyke wrote.

He said that’s a result of the 9th Circuit’s convoluted jurisprudence on gun-rights issues, which makes it easy for judges to justify any gun control measure policymakers come up with.

To prove the point, Judge VanDyke then wrote a very tongue-in-cheek 15-page opinion coming to the exact opposite conclusion of the court’s ruling this week. The mock opinion caricatured the arguments he expects the court’s more liberal members to make the case justifying the gun shutdown orders.

Judge VanDyke peppered his “alternative draft opinion” with mocking footnotes.

“Guns are dangerous, after all, so the government’s interest in ameliorating such danger is always important. At first we were worried this case might be a problem, because the regulations here don’t really have any nexus to the dangerousness of guns. But COVID-19 is dangerous too, so that substitutes in nicely,” the judge wrote in one of his blistering footnotes.

He ended the mocking draft with a sign-off to his opposing colleagues: “You’re welcome.”

For more information, visit The Washington Times COVID-19 resource page.