Fresno Rifle and Pistol Club, Inc. v. John K. Van De Kamp, Esq., in His Official Capacity as Attorney General of the State of California (1992)

Id. at 729 “Until such time as Cruikshank and Presser are overturned,” we stated, “the Second Amendment limits only federal action, and we affirm the district court’s decision ‘that the Second Amendment stays the hand of the National Government only.’” Id. at 731 (citation omitted).

See id. (“In light of the Legislature’s concern that assault weapons present an unreasonable danger of harm to human life, legitimate justifications for passage of the Act are readily apparent.”) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

See id. ("In light of the Legislature's concern that assault weapons present an unreasonable danger of harm to human life, legitimate justifications for passage of the Act are readily apparent.") (internal quotations and citations omitted).

See also BellSouth Corp. v. FCC, 144 F.3d 58, 63-64 (D.C.Cir.1998) (finding punishment a necessary condition.of a bill of attainder, regardless of specificity, in rejecting an attack on § 274 of the Special Provisions at issue in this case); Dehainaut v. Peña, 32 F.3d 1066, 1071 (7th Cir.1994) (same with regard to a provision imposing a perpetual employment bar on the air traffic controllers fired by President Reagan); Fresno Rifle and Pistol Club, Inc. v. Van De Kamp, 965 F…

Fresno Rifle and Pistol Club, Inc. v. Van De Kamp, 965 F.2d 723, 729-30 (9th Cir.1992); see also Stevens v. United States, 440 F.2d 144, 149 (6th Cir.1971) (“there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm.”), disapproved on other grounds by United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336 , 92 S.Ct. 515 , 30 L.Ed.2d 488 (1971). 18 Nevertheless, it is well established that due process protects our citizens from vague legislation eve…

This court recently cautioned that "[a]n otherwise valid law is not transformed into a bill of attainder merely because it regulates conduct on the part of designated individuals or classes of individuals." Fresno Rifle & Pistol Club, Inc. v. Van de Kamp, 965 F.2d 723, 727 (9th Cir.1992).

This court recently cautioned that “[a]n otherwise valid law is not transformed into a bill of attainder merely because it regulates conduct on the part of designated individuals or classes of individuals.” Fresno Rifle & Pistol Club, Inc. v. Van de Kamp, 965 F.2d 723, 727 (9th Cir.1992).

NORDYKE v. KING 4481 Supreme Court, we simply noted that “[t]his theory of total incorporation . . . has been continually rejected.” Fresno Rifle, 965 F.2d at 730 (internal quotation marks omitted). [7] Thus, we did not, in Fresno Rifle, reach the question of whether the Second Amendment is selectively incorporated through the Due Process Clause.

See, e.g., Nordyke v. King, 319 F.3d 1185 , 1191-92 & n. 4 (9th Cir.2003); United States v. Parker, 362 F.3d 1279, 1282 (10th Cir.2004). 20 Cf. Emerson, 270 F.3d at 272 (Parker, J., concurring) ("The determination whether rights bestowed by the Second Amendment are collective or individual is entirely unnecessary to resolve this case and has no bearing on the judgment we dictate by this opinion."). 21 The district court recognized that defendants raised this argument, but it…

See Thomas v. Members of the City Council of Portland, 730 F.2d 41, 42 (1st Cir.1984) (per curiam); Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916, 921 (1st Cir.1942) ("[Tjhe only function of the Second Amendment [is] to prevent the federal government and the federal government only from infringing that right.”); Love v. Pepersack, 47 F.3d 120, 123 (4th Cir.1995) ("The Second Amendment does not apply to the states.”); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 232 (4th Cir.1999) ("[T…

Assuming —without deciding—that HVIRA meets the first and third elements, it fails to meet the second. 73 We consider three factors when determining whether "a statute inflicts punishment that implicates the Bill of Attainder Clause." Fresno Rifle & Pistol Club, Inc. v. Van De Kamp, 965 F.2d 723, 728 (9th Cir.1992).

We consider three factors when determining whether “a statute inflicts punishment that implicates the Bill of Attainder Clause.” Fresno Rifle & Pistol Club, Inc. v. Van De Kamp, 965 F.2d 723, 728 (9th Cir.1992).

VIII, c. 3 (1536)) 13 See also BellSouth Corp. v. FCC, 144 F.3d 58, 63-64 (D.C.Cir.1998) (finding punishment a necessary condition of a bill of attainder, regardless of specificity, in rejecting an attack on § 274 of the Special Provisions at issue in this case); Dehainaut v. Pena, 32 F.3d 1066, 1071 (7th Cir.1994) (same with regard to a provision imposing a perpetual employment bar on the air traffic controllers fired by President Reagan); Fresno Rifle and Pistol Club, Inc.…

Fresno Rifle and Pistol Club, Inc. v. Van De Kamp, 965 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir.1992).

Fresno Rifle and Pistol Club, Inc. v. Van De Kamp, 965 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir.1992).

Current Ninth Circuit law holds that “the Second Amendment constrains only the actions of Congress, not the states.” Fresno Rifle and Pistol Club, Inc. v. Van De Kamp, 965 F.2d 723, 729 (9th Cir.1992).

United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303 , 314–316 (1946) (finding that an 10 appropriations bill that prohibited the compensation of three named three federal employees 11 based on what Congress believed to be their political beliefs constituted a bill of attainder). 12 Courts are clear that “[a]n otherwise valid law is not transformed into a bill of attainder 13 merely because it regulates conduct on the part of designated individuals or classes of 14 individuals.” Fresno Rif…

The Ordinances address this risk by protecting floating home marina 11 residents from exorbitant rent increases, while allowing landlords to petition for a higher rent 12 through the fair return petition process.7 In light of the Ordinances’ findings that exorbitant rent 13 increases pose an immediate and permanent risk to vulnerable floating home residents, many of 14 whom are over 65 and low-income, “legitimate justifications for passage of the [Ordinances] are 15 readily …

Servs., 433 U.S. 425, 468 (1977)); Opp’n 22 at 18. “‘Forbidden legislative punishment is not involved merely because the Act imposes 23 burdensome consequences . . . [the court] must inquire’ whether the [legislative body] ‘inflict[ed] 24 punishment[.]’” Fresno Rifle & Pistol Club, Inc. v. Van De Kamp, 965 F.2d 723, 727 (9th Cir. 25 1992) (quoting Nixon, 433 U.S. at 472 ).

McDonald v. City of Chicago, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 48 , 174 L.Ed.2d 632 (2009); Maloney v. Cuomo, 554 F.3d 56, 58 (2d Cir.2009) (per curiam) (“It is settled law ... that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right.”); Bach v. Pataki, 408 F.3d 75, 84 (2d Cir.2005) (holding that the Second Amendment imposes a limitation on only federal, not state, legislative efforts); Fresno Rifle & Pistol Club, Inc. v. Van De Kamp, 965 …

See, e.g., Bach v. Pataki, 408 F.3d 75, 84 (2d Cir. 2005) (“[W]e hold that the Second Amendment’s ‘right to keep and bear arms’ imposes a limitation on only federal, not state, legislative efforts.”) (footnote omitted); Peoples Rights Org., Inc. v. City of Columbus, 152 F.3d 522 , 538 n.18 (6th Cir. 1998); Love v. Pepersack, 47 F.3d 120, 123 (4th Cir. 1995); Fresno Rifle and Pistol Club, Inc. v. Van De Kamp, 965 F.2d 723, 731 (9th Cir. 1992); Thomas v. Members of the City Co…

(See Fresno Rifle and Pistol Club, Inc. v. Van De Kamp (9th Cir. 1992) 965 F.2d 723, 726, fn. 4 .) Regulations implementing the act expressly state that a license issued pursuant to it does not confer any right to conduct business or activity contrary to state law. 7 ( 27 C.F.R. § 478.58 (2006).) Defendant consequently reaches for a more attenuated basis for his preemption claim.

Better guidance is sought and found in Fresno Rifle and Pistol Club, Inc. v. Van De Kamp, 965 F.2d 723, 727-28 (9th Cir.1992), which rejected virtually the identical bill of attainder challenge asserted here against a California firearms ban.

Co. v. Bombolis, 241 U.S. 211, 216-17 , 36 S.Ct. 595, 596 , 60 L.Ed. 961 (1916); Fresno Rifle & Pistol Club, Inc. v. Van De Kamp, 965 F.2d 723, 730 (9th Cir. 1992).

Co. v. Bombolis, 241 U.S. 211, 216-17 , 36 S.Ct. 595, 596 , 60 L.Ed. 961 (1916); Fresno Rifle & Pistol Club, Inc. v. Van De Kamp, 965 F.2d 723, 730 (9th Cir.1992).

See Fresno Rifle & Pistol Club, Inc. v. Van De Kamp, 965 F.2d 723, 730 (9th Cir.1992) (noting that the Seventh Amendment is not applicable to states through the Fourteenth Amendment); United States v. Stansell, 847 F.2d 609, 611 (9th Cir.1988) (holding that the Sixth Amendment right to jury trial does not extend to petty offenses; where maximum penalty does not exceed six months imprisonment, $500 fine, or both, offense is presumptively petty); see also Cal. Gov’t Code § 251…

See Fresno Rifle and Pistol Club v. Van De Kamp, 965 F.2d 723, 729-31 (9th Cir.1992).

See Fresno Rifle & Pistol Club, Inc. v. Van De Kamp, 965 F.2d 723, 727 (9th Cir.1992).

Comm'n, 793 F.2d 1090 , 1096 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1102 (1987); see also Fresno Rifle & Pistol Club, Inc. v. Van De Kamp, 965 F.2d 723, 730 (9th Cir.1992) (Seventh Amendment not applicable to states through Fourteenth Amendment).

Two courts have recently considered the preemptive effect of the federal Civilian Marksmanship Program (“CMP”) over state and local gun regulations. 10 U.S.C. *1320 §§ 4307-4313; See Fresno Rifle and Pistol Club, Inc. v. Van De Kamp, 965 F.2d 723 (9th Cir.1992); Richmond Boro Gun Club, Inc. v. City of New York, 896 F.Supp. 276 (E.D.N.Y.1995).

Compare Fresno Rifle & Pistol Club, Inc. v. Van De Kamp, 965 F.2d 723, 731 (9th Cir.1992) (concluding that until such time as United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 23 L.Ed. 588 (1876), and Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 , 6 S.Ct. 580 , 29 L.Ed. 615 (1886), are overturned, "the Second Amendment limits only federal action”) with Nordyke v. King, 563 F.3d 439, 457 (9th Cir.2009), reh'g en banc granted, 575 F.3d 890 (concluding that "the Due Process Clause of the Fourteen…

See Presser, supra; see also Fresno Rifle and Pistol Club, Inc. v. Van de Kamp, 965 F.2d 723, 731 (9th Cir.1992) (Second Amendment limits only federal action); Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261, 270 (7th Cir.1982) (same); United States v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548 (4th Cir.1974) (same).

See also Mayberry v. Rizzo, No.95-CV-199, 1996 WL 66229 , *1 (D.Me.1996) (right to bear arm has never been incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of due process) (citing, Fresno Rifle and Pistol Club, Inc. v. Van De Kamp, 965 F.2d 723, 730 (9th Cir.1992)).

See Fresno Rifle and Pistol Club, Inc. v. Van De Kamp, 965 F.2d 723, 728 (9th Cir.1992); United States v. Monsanto Co., 858 F.2d 160, 175 (4th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1106 , 109 S.Ct. 3156 , 104 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1989) (holding that the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) did not constitute an unlawful bill of attainder).