If the pro-2nd Amendment groups were smart, they’d try to get a ballot initiative that restricts the type of firearms that employees of the state can carry. No “assault rifles”, no magazines above 10 rounds, safe secure, all sorts of this nonsense. This would definitely apply to all law enforcement who provide protection to elected officials and appointed officials
Judge strikes down California gun law modeled on Texas abortion measure
A federal judge has blocked a California gun law that emulated a controversial Texas abortion measure — and which was intended to provoke a court fight.
The injunction from Judge Roger Benitez sets California’s law, which enables private citizens to sue manufacturers of illegal guns, on a potential path to the U.S. Supreme Court. That could set up a test of both laws — an outcome that California Gov. Gavin Newsom has sought.
“I want to thank Judge Benitez. We have been saying all along that Texas’ anti-abortion law is outrageous. Judge Benitez just confirmed it is also unconstitutional,” Newsom said in a statement Monday. “The provision in California’s law that he struck down is a replica of what Texas did, and his explanation of why this part of SB 1327 unfairly blocks access to the courts applies equally to Texas’ SB 8.”
Oh, such a burn, Gavin. Different states, bub, and abortion doesn’t appear in the federal Constitution or the Texas Constitution. Guns do. Abortion does appear in California’s Constitution. Guns do not, but, the 2nd Amendment applies to all U.S. states and territories.
Benitez also underscored the ties between the two laws in his ruling, citing Newsom’s condemnations of the Texas measure that deputizes citizens to sue abortion providers as evidence that the California gun law is unconstitutional.
“‘It is cynical.’ ‘It is an abomination.’ ‘It is outrageous and objectionable.’ ‘There is no dispute that it raises serious constitutional questions,’” Benitez wrote at the start of his ruling, quoting Newsom on the Texas law as evidence that “by implication,” the same is true of California’s law.
Gavin achieved a nice little legal self-own, failing to note that Texas and California are two different states.
In striking down the assault weapons ban, Benitez compared AR-15 rifles to Swiss Army Knives — drawing a furious response from Newsom, who excoriated the judge as a “wholly-owned subsidiary of the gun lobby and the National Rifle Association.”
Yet, Gavin is protected by those same weapons, many of which are fully automatic and illegal for most citizens to own.
I’m not really sure what the term “illegal weapons” means and who would be manufacturing them. Manufacturing implies a factory. Factories imply real estate, taxes, amortizing and investment in equipment, more taxes and government oversight. Maybe they mean weapons that are manufactured perfectly legal, but that were then illegal to possess in CALIFORNIA. If that is the case, the law seems to fail in several points making it unenforceable. It is fun to speculate on hypothetical laws but since this one did not pass judicial scrutiny, it doesn’t matter enough for me to bother researching.
Yet, Gavin is protected by those same weapons, many of which are fully automatic and illegal for most citizens to own.
I hate to point out what my father told me years ago but anything that needs a “license” is illegal. The license, in this case to own an “illegal weapon” is nothing more than a retractable tax giving a special privilege to a person for money. Privileges are not rights.
Ask yourself this: If we wanted to have a license to vote what would the demofascists say? See, big difference. They’d go batshit crazy at the suggestion that their right to vote needed a license yet have no problem with our RTKABA does. They are, as usual, hypocrites.
Yesterday’s left held that our constitutional rights were inviolable; today’s left apparently believe that speech, assembly and religion need to be heavily regulated, and the right to keep and bear arms simply abolished.
Only for the unwashed masses. The politically connected, their guards, and agents of the state (police and military) will still be keeping and bearing plenty of arms.
It looks to me as today’s left wants to eliminate our constitutional rights an create a list of accepted acts and actions, thoughts and speech. Everything else is kaput.
CarolAnn,
You failed to note that your “President”, DJ Trump, has called for suspending the Constitution.
What rights would you have in tRumplandia? Those that The Don grants.
False dilemma.
A Rimjob fave.
#Galera
#LetsGoBrandon
Bwaha! Lolgf
#
Over 3 million Americans die each year, but only 45,000 or so from firearms (homicides, suicides, accidents). That’s hardly 1.5% of total deaths that result from gun use. And over 50% of firearms related deaths are suicides!
Most homicides are committed in urban areas (where most Americans live). Some 80% of victims are males, 50% are black. By and large, black men murder black men and white men murder white men.
Would the US have fewer gun related deaths with fewer firearms? Of course. Do state or local restrictions work? Of course not.
The US will never ban guns unless the 2nd Amendment is repealed, which ain’t gonna happen. So we need to face facts.
Rather than gun bans we need to address the WHY of homicides and suicides – poverty, lack of opportunity, mental health, healthcare, drugs, youth. Note that suicide rates are INCREASING in the under 35 year old cohorts.
As I’ve said before, I WOULD ban AR-15 style rifles since they’re only used for killing kids in schools, families in malls and grandmas in grocery stores. Contrary to claims by connies, mass shootings DO have a greater impact on society than gangbanger shootings.
The old “The Army has grenades and machine guns, why can’t I?” argument.