2AF Brief Shreds the 9th Circuit’s Long History of Bad Gun Rulings

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has long carried a reputation among gun owners as hostile to the Second Amendment. In his recent video, William, host of Copper Jacket TV, reminded viewers that it is often called the “Ninth Circus” because of how frequently its judges lean on judicial activism instead of constitutional text. According to William, this circuit has been stacked with judges who advance their own political agendas, and the result has been over a century of lopsided, anti-gun rulings.

One Rare Win in Over 130 Years

William noted that since the Ninth Circuit was created in 1891, pro–Second Amendment litigants had never finalized a victory there until very recently. That lone exception was Nuin v. Bonta. In that case, California declined to request an en banc rehearing, which is the process where a larger panel of Ninth Circuit judges reviews a three-judge ruling. Because the state didn’t challenge it, the panel’s pro-gun decision was allowed to stand. William emphasized how unusual that was – nearly every other win has been wiped away once the court went en banc.

100 Percent Rehearings for Gun Cases

When it comes to cases involving firearms, William said the Ninth Circuit’s track record is unique. Statistically, the court only grants en banc rehearings in less than two percent of all cases that pass through its doors. But in Second Amendment disputes, the number is effectively 100 percent. Every time a three-judge panel sides with gun owners, the case is pulled back, reheard, and usually reversed in favor of the state. William stressed that this imbalance is not only unfair to litigants but also corrosive to public trust in the judiciary.

The Yukutake v. Lopez Case

The most recent example is Yukutake v. Lopez, a challenge to Hawaii’s strict firearm laws. A three-judge panel struck down requirements that forced gun buyers to complete purchases within arbitrary time limits and even bring newly bought firearms to the police for inspection. That ruling sided with plaintiffs and recognized there was no historical basis for such restrictions. But the Ninth Circuit quickly moved to take the case en banc, putting the win in jeopardy. William said this shows the predictable pattern – any time the Second Amendment gains ground, the Ninth Circuit resets the board.

Enter the 2AF and Kostas Moros

In a rare and bold move, the Second Amendment Foundation (2AF), attorney Kostas Moros, the California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA), and the Second Amendment Law Center filed an amicus brief that directly confronted the Ninth Circuit’s history. William described the filing as extraordinary, because instead of politely arguing points of law, it outright accused the court of bias, hypocrisy, and damage to its own legitimacy.

The Brief Pulls No Punches

According to William, the brief made it clear that the panel ruling in Yukutake had reached the correct result because there is “simply no historical tradition” for Hawaii’s requirements. But it didn’t stop there. The brief accused the Ninth Circuit of applying one set of standards to most litigants and another set entirely to those defending Second Amendment rights. It pointed out that while most parties keep their victories after a panel ruling, Second Amendment plaintiffs almost always lose them once the case is dragged into en banc review.

The Cost to Advocacy Groups

The brief also raised another practical point. As William summarized, the repeated rehearings are not just unfair, they drain the limited resources of nonprofit gun rights groups. Each time the Ninth Circuit wipes away a panel win, organizations like the 2AF or CRPA have to spend more money fighting the same battle again – against taxpayer-funded state attorneys with deep pockets. That imbalance, the brief argued, discourages citizens from turning to the courts for redress and undermines confidence in the system.

Calling Out the Ninth Circuit’s Legacy

William highlighted a powerful section of the amicus brief where the authors reviewed the Ninth Circuit’s “habit” of reversing gun rights wins, and how this practice erodes the court’s reputation. They even asked the court to consider reversing its own damaging standards from prior cases like BNL Productions v. Newsom. The brief urged the Ninth Circuit to use this opportunity to adopt a correct plain-text standard, as required by the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, and strike down Hawaii’s laws.

Why This Brief Stands Out

What William found most striking was that the brief did not tiptoe around the court’s failings. It “goes beast mode,” as he put it, shredding the Ninth Circuit for its long record of stripping away gun rights victories. William said it was refreshing to see someone openly confront the court instead of treating it with kid gloves. While the Supreme Court has rebuked the Ninth Circuit before, it’s rare to see such a direct attack within the walls of the circuit itself.

A Court That Lost Trust

From my perspective, this moment underscores just how far the Ninth Circuit has drifted. Courts are supposed to apply the law consistently, regardless of the issue at hand. But when one subject, gun rights, receives different treatment every single time, confidence is bound to collapse. William is right: if advocacy groups and citizens expect to be treated fairly, the judiciary must stop signaling that the Second Amendment is a second-class right.

National Implications

It’s easy to dismiss this as just another fight in the Ninth Circuit, but the implications are national. As William pointed out, this circuit covers vast portions of the western United States, from Montana down to Arizona and out to Hawaii. When the court consistently sides with the state and blocks the Second Amendment, tens of millions of Americans are affected. And when its rulings are eventually overturned at the Supreme Court, years of delay and wasted resources have already taken their toll.

A Needed Pushback

William praised the amicus brief for doing something few dare – putting the Ninth Circuit in its place. Whether or not the court takes the criticism to heart, the filing at least forces it to confront its own history. The hope, he explained, is that by shining a light on the pattern, future panels may think twice before treating the Second Amendment as a right that always loses. For now, the case continues, but the message from 2AF and Kostas Moros is clear: enough is enough.

Holding Courts Accountable

The Ninth Circuit has long been the most overturned appellate court in the nation, and its Second Amendment record is a big reason why. William’s reporting makes clear that advocates are no longer content to quietly fight case by case. The 2AF brief is both a legal argument and a public indictment of judicial activism. If nothing else, it reminds Americans that courts are not immune from criticism. And for gun owners in the Ninth Circuit, it signals that someone is finally willing to call the judges out for more than a century of getting it wrong.