Nordyke

ORDER

The panel voted to deny the petition for rehearing. Judges O’Scannlain and Gould voted to grant the petition for rehearing en banc, and Judge Alarcon so recommended. The panel requestéd a vote of the full court on whether the case should be reconsidered en banc. A majority of the active nonrecused judges of the court failed to vote in favor of rehearing en banc, and the petition is therefore denied. With this order the clerk shall also file Judge Kozinski’s concurrence, Judge Kleinfeld’s dissent from denial, and Judge Gould’s dissent from denial.

The stay of the issuance of the mandate is vacated.

concurring:

■The concerns raised by Judge Gould’s dissent also triggered an en banc call in Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir.2002). After a vigorous exchange of views, the call misfired, 328 F.3d 567 (9th Cir.2003), and the Supreme Court shot down the petition for certiorari less than six months ago, — U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 803 , 157 L.Ed.2d 693 (2003). Because I believe prudential considerations militate against revisiting the issue quite so soon, I voted against taking this case en banc and so, regretfully, cannot join Judge Gould’s bulls-eye dissent.

dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc:

I respectfully dissent'. I join fully in ■Judge Gould’s superb dissent, which explains coherently and most admirably why the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Our court has erased 10% of the Bill of Rights for 20% of the American people. No liberties are safe if courts can so easily *1026 erase them, and no lover of liberty can be confident that an important right will never become so disfavored in popular or elite opinion as to be vulnerable to being discarded like the Second Amendment.

I have spelled out in great detail why our court’s…