The LA Times seems pretty upset that law abiding citizens would get their Constitutional rights back, and starts out with a story that shows the exact problem with red flag and overly-permissive gun seizure laws (Yahoo News version here)
War on California gun laws revs up after Supreme Court’s ‘right to carry’ decision
For years, the relationship between Miranda and Richard Wallingford and their Huntington Beach neighbor Jessica Nguyen has been unhappy — if not outright hostile.
According to federal court records, Nguyen didn’t like the decades-old melaleuca tree in the Wallingfords’ yard. The couple refused to take it down. The tiff between neighbors spiraled into dueling harassment allegations in an Orange County court. In 2019, restraining orders were issued to both parties requiring them to stay away from each other and, under California law, to surrender any firearms they owned.
On Friday, attorneys for the Wallingfords and the state of California dialed into a virtual hearing of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Each side presented oral arguments about whether the state’s restraining order statute violated the couple’s 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.
Apparently, that’s all it takes for the Government to take away a law abiding citizen’s 2nd Amendment Right. There is no mention of violence, no fights, no physical threats, not in any article I can find on this. Meanwhile, the same government is against things like stop and frisk, gang units, and other measures going after criminals.
Anyhow, their lawyer is appealing and amending that appeal using the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. vs. Bruen ruling to bolster the case
In less than a month, the Bruen decision has reinvigorated an already robust legal war on California’s gun laws and forced lower courts to begin reconsidering a whole host of legal challenges — with potentially massive stakes in a country devastated by gun violence on a daily basis.
The vast majority of “gun violence” comes from those who do not legally possess a firearm, and others who really shouldn’t have been given a permit to start with, but, so often, the relevant information about the person doesn’t make it into the background check system.
The cases under new scrutiny deal with some of the most consequential restrictions on firearms in the nation, including the state’s bans on military-style weapons, large-capacity magazines and adults under the age of 21 owning semiautomatic rifles. Local closures of gun stores and ranges during COVID-19 lockdowns are also facing fresh scrutiny.
As well they should.
Eugene Volokh, also a UCLA professor who studies the 2nd Amendment, said the Bruen decision was most impactful in that it removed a long-standing “balancing test” that courts have used to assess gun laws for years: whether a law’s burden on law-abiding gun owners is outweighed by the public interest.
“That test is no longer part of the argument,” Volokh said.
Winkler said Bruen precludes such analysis in favor of a “history and tradition test” that considers restrictive gun laws legitimate only if they have historical roots or are analogous to some historical gun restriction — such as on guns being carried by convicted felons or into specific, “sensitive” areas like courthouses.
As well it should, especially since it is rarely law abiding citizens who are the problem. If they were, you’d hear about it, but, the vast majority of those who own a scary looking “assault rifle” never ever use it to commit a criminal act. And, heck, if they wanted to, they could simply purchase a non-scary looking one that fires at the same rate (one round per trigger pull) and the same rounds.
The decision was in many ways a shot across the bow for California officials and residents who have long prided themselves for being a liberal bastion somehow shielded from the edicts of the conservative high court.
State officials, including Gov. Gavin Newsom and Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, have said they are actively working to understand Bruen’s potential implications in California — and to minimize them. State legislators have already passed new laws that they say do not run afoul of the Bruen decision but bolster gun restrictions in the state.
How about going after criminals instead of restricting the rights of law abiding citizens? And, if liberals do not like guns, well, don’t buy one. Easy, right? Anyhow, it’s a long, long piece, worth the read.
Let the state’s voters decide! Or do States’ Rights stop at the trigger? LOL.
Dear Elwood:
You do know that federal laws override state laws.
Don’t you????
“Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions.”
James, those articles probably aren’t in the Troll under the Arch’s Wiki Constitution copy.
It’s funny. All the Lefties love federal laws until they don’t allow them to do what they want.
I think the word is hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy is an excellent term for the typical lefty reaction to federal laws and rulings when they don’t get what they want.
HAHAHAH. “Let the voters decide” in the same state that overwhelmingly voted against gay marriage, then had it overturned and forced down their throats by a single judge. Or in a nation that overwhelmingly was against ACA but had it forced upon us by congressmembers who had already been voted out of office.
Democratic party activist judges really only care about Supreme court judgements when it suits them. Otherwise, they will keep ignoring them and passing their own activist judgements and force the citizens to go through the costly appeals process. Punishment by legal process.