California Law Restricting Firearms Survives Federal Challenge on Procedural Grounds
In a major success for those advocating for gun control, a federal court ruling challenging the California law preventing restraining orders from carrying firearms was vehemently rejected.
In the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, it was decided by a vote of 2 to 1 that Miranda and Richard Wallingford’s legal appeal was now irrelevant given that their restraining order had expired. Consequently, the court decided to maintain the state of California’s legislation.
Activists Frustrated by Rights Issue
Alexander Frank, the attorney representing the Wallingfords, expressed disappointment that the court would not address their fundamental argument that the law violated their 2nd Amendment rights since he believed it to be a topic that goes beyond their particular case.
The verdict was applauded by the California Attorney General's office, which represented the state in this case and highlighted the significance of the state's gun safety regulations in defending communities.
Background of the Wallingford Case
In 2019, restraining orders were issued against both Jessica Nguyen and the Wallingfords because of their argument. The Wallingfords legal action resulted from the requirement that they give up their firearms later on. While not forbidding everyone under restraining orders from owning weapons, they argued that the state legislation set the bar for such prohibitions too low.
2nd Amendment Rights and the Case's Implications
The court's ruling in the Wallingfords' case focused on practical matters even though it concerned 2nd Amendment rights. The decision did not consider the law's broader constitutional implications. Legal professionals assert that if the court had directly addressed the 2nd Amendment claims, the result would have been different. Since the Bruen ruling and the nomination of new judges to the court, the historically liberal 9th Circuit has shifted to a position that is more opposed to gun regulation.
