Though Nordyke v King follows the Ninth Circuit’s gross misreading of US v Miller (1939) in its Hickman ruling, it’s interesting because Gould’s concurrent opinion says:
I join the court’s opinion, and write to elaborate that Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir. 1996), was wrongly decided, that the remarks in Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2002), about the “collective rights” theory of the Second Amendment are not persuasive, and that we would be better advised to embrace an “individual rights” view of the Second Amendment . . . .
Our panel is bound by Hickman, and we cannot reach the merits of Nordyke’s challenge to Second Amendment. [sic] But the holding of Hickman can be discarded by our court en banc . . . .
As Comedian points out, this judge was appointed by Clinton!
This raises an interesting procedural point of which I was unaware: this panel could not challenge Hickman because it was only three judges, not the full Circuit Court of Appeal. (How often does a Circuit sit en banc?)