Eleven U.S.Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals judges are going to decide whether ordinary Californians are going to be able to carry guns to defend themselves.
The Circuit's current chief judge will be one the panel's members. Its other 10 members supposedly will be chosen at random from the Circuits other 25 sitting judges not recusing themselves.
The joker in the panel is that the chief judge already has voted on the matter. He was the dissenting vote in the 2--to -1 vote of the three-judge panel upholding the right of citizens to carry arms. He also voted to require the rehearing of the case by the 11 judge panel that he obviously hopes will vindicate his prior votes in the case.
Thus the right-to-carry starts out with one nay vote.
Does anyone think this is fair?
Keep in mind that individuals who are supposed to be addressed as honorable rarely merit that appellation. By and large they are not bound by the rules they impose on the rest of us.
Two interesting side points:
* Any black-robed elitist judge who wishes to do so can get a permit to carry concealed weapons, and many of them do so. Of course their lives are more important than ours.
* On his first day as a judge, a former law partner of your not-at-all humble blogger who had been appointed and approved to take the bench was visited by a police officer carrying a large piece of luggage. The bag contained a collection of firearms from which the newly seated judge was invited to select one or more (at no cost) with which he might wish to defend himself if there should be a perceived need to do so. He was advised that the collection was made up of weapons that had been seized and confiscated from their owners who were deemed -- though usually not adjudicated -- to be ineligible to possess or carry them.
Those holding a position that carries with it the right to be addressed as honorable (as well as their cronies and supporters), celebrities (even those who have been convicted of felonies), and big political campaign donors constitute one class of citizens . . . and their well being is important and entitled to protection.
As for the rest of us . . . . Oh well.