Thread by @2Aupdates

Nelson asks McDougall about mootness. Asks if it fits into capable of repetition but evading review, or should be just kept alive for damages. McDougall says the county never said they wouldn't do it again, and they still have the power to do it again.

https://twitter.com/2Aupdates/status/1450153555126591491

VanDyke asks how neutrality plays into the 2nd Amendment (as opposed to the 1st Amendment).

VanDyke says the 9th Circuit has really watered-down the concept of reasonable fit in regards to the 2nd Amendment.

VanDyke says it's easier to compare this restriction to other ones because this isn't comparing gun laws to laws on other things, it's comparing COVID-related closures to each other.

VanDyke asks why bikes stores were allowed to stay open: Are they going to ride it on a little bike track at home?

Ventura says essential workers used them to get to work. VanDyke asks if bike stores were limited to selling to essential workers. Ventura doesn't really answer.

Kleinfeld says you doesn't see bicyclists commuting on the I-5. Asks if the order said it was for essential workers to commute. Ventura says auto repair stores were exempted to.

Kleinfeld: "I don't think you heard my question."

Kleinfeld points out that bike stores could be open and sell to anyone, even if the justification was for them to sell to essential workers. Ventura says being could use bikes to get groceries or medication.

Kleinfeld: "You're really not responding to my question."

Kleinfeld says he thinks the county allowed bike stores because they think bikes are good, and prohibited gun stores from opening because they think guns are bad.

Ventura says that nothing banned people from owning guns. VanDyke says the order banned non-gun owners from owning guns, because their was no way for them to acquire one.

Kleinfeld says people could shoot their guns either because they closed the ranges. Ventura says people could still shoot on their property. Kleinfeld says maybe Hollywood stars with 20-acre lots could, but not everybody else.

Ventura says the 9th Circuit previously upheld California's 10-day waiting period.

VanDyke: But not a 2-month waiting period, which this effectively was.

Nelson asks why the county changed the restrictions partway through. Ventura says it's because the COVID stats started getting better. Kleinfeld asks if that reasoning is in the record, asks for the location.

Ventura says the county couldn't allow people to buy guns on the "sidewalk" because people can't have their guns out in public. VanDyke asks how that's different from walking out of the store with a gun you bought.

Ventura says it's because California requires buyers to show how the gun operates. VanDyke says the county is justifying their restriction on gun stores by relying on California's unique restrictions on gun sales. Mentions that CA residents are required to buy ammo in-person.

VanDyke asks how the existence of restrictions that barely pass intermediate scrutiny justify further restrictions. Ventura says people could still own guns. Nelson mentions that it still banned new sales of guns for two months.

Ventura keeps saying that banning sales of guns for 2 months wasn't a long time. Nelson asks how long would be too long. Would 2 years have violated the 2nd Amendment? Ventura trying to avoid answering.

Nelson (who is on the panel in Jones) says California has argued that 3 years (from age 18 to 21) is temporary. Ventura says 2 years is probably too long.

VanDyke says based on the county's arguments (that this was good and could be done again), it sounds like it's not moot. The county says that the nominal damages claim makes the case not moot.

VanDyke directly asks: If the county chose to impose these restrictions again, would they be lawful?

Ventura says the restrictions are not likely to be imposed again.

Kleinfeld says he's having a hard time sorting out which things are in the pleadings, in the record, and "made up by counsel on the fly."

Says the Delta variant makes the "this won't happen again" argument less believable.

Kleinfeld says that the court has watered down intermediate scrutiny so much that it's basically rational basis scrutiny, and it would be hard not to justify the restrictions under rational basis.

Kleinfeld says he doesn't know anyone who's been in Alaska a long time and doesn't have "plenty of guns and ammo at home."