Outrageous: Judge VanDyke Calls Out 9th Circuit’s Devious Maneuvers Against 2nd Amendment ~ VIDEO

from Ammoland, January 24, 2025

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.

Hawaii’s Quick Legislative Shuffle

Reacting to the panel’s decision, Hawaii quickly amended its state laws, removing the butterfly knife ban. This legislative change mooted the case, meaning there was no longer an existing controversy for the courts to resolve, as the law being challenged was no longer in effect. Conveniently for Hawaii, this mootness came just as the Ninth Circuit took the case en banc, thus sparing the full court from issuing a ruling on the ban’s Second Amendment implications. How convenient!?

The Implications of Strategic Mootness

In his dissent, Judge VanDyke pointed out the dangerous precedent such maneuvers set. Governments can now temporarily adjust laws to avoid unfavorable legal precedents, only to potentially reinstate them later. This not only undermines the judicial process but also jeopardizes the protection of fundamental rights under the guise of legal procedural technicalities.

Judge Lawrence VanDyke’s Dissent in Teeter v. Lopez

Judicial Integrity & Transparency

The essence of Judge VanDyke’s dissent is a call to action for the judiciary to uphold integrity and transparency, especially when fundamental rights are at stake. Activist judges’ manipulation of judicial processes to avoid setting precedents that affirm Second Amendment rights reveals a disconcerting willingness to prioritize political agendas over constitutional protections.

Looking Forward

As supporters of the Second Amendment, it’s crucial to remain vigilant and informed about these underhanded judicial tactics used to sidestep the protections guaranteed by the Constitution. Judge VanDyke’s dissent is a well-deserved critique but also a call for those who advocate for robust and straightforward judicial reasoning. As we move forward, let’s keep a close eye on the courts and support efforts to promote transparency and accountability in our judicial system.

Judge VanDyke’s courage to speak out provides a critical lesson on the importance of judicial integrity and the ever-present need to guard our liberties against covert judicial overreach.

---30---

B: Hawaii's Amended Butterfly Knife Ban Moots Legal Challenge