Hat tip to Richard Winger at Ballot Access News:
On January 20, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion in McDougall v County of Ventura, 20-56220. This case is not related to election law. The case concerned the constitutionality of a 48-day shut-down of gun shops and firing ranges by the county government of Ventura County. The three judges in the case agreed that the order violates the Second Amendment. Judge Lawrence VanDyke wrote the majority decision, in favor of the plaintiffs who sued the county over its order. The vote was 3-0.
But Judge VanDyke then wrote a concurring opinion, coming to the exact opposite conclusion and upholding the gun rule. His concurrence is a joke, and does not change the outcome. He says he wrote it because invariably, every time a constitutional case relating to guns is in the Ninth Circuit, and the regulation is struck down, every time the losing side then asks for en banc review, and every time the Ninth Circuit grants the en banc rehearing and reverses the original panel. VanDyke says he wrote the concurrence to do a favor to the judges who will inevitably seek to reverse the 3-judge panel. He says he wrote it to save them the time and trouble. His concurrence is a satire, and it ends with the words, “You’re welcome.” Thanks to How Appealing for this news.
