The Ninth Circuit, apparently looking for another 9-0 overruling by the Supremes to add to their coup stick, has issued an opinion that the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right to bear arms.

Unsurprisingly, it cites Bellesiles. The judges apparently don't get out much.

Equally unsurprisingly, Eugene Volokh has some excellent commentary, as does Clayton Cramer.

[Update at noon PST]

It just occurs to me that this is probably just the case the Supremes may be looking for to finally resolve the issue, even if the Administration wants to continue to try to have it both ways (i.e., stating that it's their policy, but not actually changing any laws that would logically follow from such a policy shift).

We now have the Fifth and Ninth Circuits in diametrical opposition to each other, with this case and Emerson. It's exactly the kind of case that the Supremes are necessary to resolve.

The gun grabbers shouldn't be cheering this ruling, particularly when one understands just on what shaky historical and Constitutional grounds it rests. It may prove to be their Waterloo.

And Bellesiles may be the best thing to ever have happened to supporters of the right to bear arms, which is why Gary Wills, among others, is so angry at him now.

Bellesiles wouldn't have been such a win for the RKBA side if the gun control side hadn't embraced him with such uncritical fervor. If he hadn't been lauded and praised by people like Gary Wills, Bellesiles would just be a footnote now. The gun control gang did it to themselves, but I doubt that they'll ever realize it.

The amazing thing is that they continue to do it, as demonstrated by Reinhardt's decision, and its cite of him.