Second Amendment

2 New Court Decisions Are Quietly Eliminating Californians' Second Amendment Rights

Golden State gun owners may soon be an endangered species, and no one is talking about why.

|

Skypixel/Dreamstime.com

Two new federal court decisions highlight a harsh new reality: California has effectively repealed the Second Amendment inside its borders.

In the first case, decided yesterday, a district judge ruled against the National Rifle Association's state affiliate in a challenge to onerous new California rules targeting popular semi-automatic rifles. That 2016 law, signed by Gov. Jerry Brown (D), is called the Assault Weapons Control Act.

"Even an outright ban on certain types of semiautomatic weapons does not substantially burden the Second Amendment right," wrote Judge Josephine Staton, a Barack Obama appointee in Santa Ana, California. Staton suggested that if semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15 were outlawed, California gun owners "would be left with myriad options for self-defense—including the handgun, the 'quintessential' self-defense weapon per Heller." (Heller, is, of course, a reference to the Supreme Court's D.C. v. Heller case, which dealt with handguns.)

The second unsuccessful Second Amendment case, also brought by the NRA's state affiliate, sought to protect Californians' rights to carry firearms for self-defense. A federal judge in Los Angeles tossed it on Monday, saying the California legislature "reasonably saw a link between restrictions" on carrying firearms and public safety.

In theory, after the Supreme Court's Heller decision in 2008, the Second Amendment was supposed to mean something—it was supposed to protect a core fundamental right as important as the freedom to speak or to worship. Just as the First Amendment was the uniform law of the land across the nation, the theory went, the Second Amendment would be as well.

But, alas, that was not political reality. California judges, especially in cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles, have creatively interpreted the Heller decision into a constitutional near-nullity. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has upheld those decisions. And the U.S. Supreme Court, has abdicated its responsibility by letting lower courts get away with it.

"If a lower court treated another right so cavalierly, I have little doubt that this Court would intervene," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a dissent from his colleagues' decision not to hear the Silvester v. Harris case after the 9th Circuit upheld another California anti-gun measure. "But as evidenced by our continued inaction in this area, the Second Amendment is a disfavored right in this Court… The right to keep and bear arms is apparently this Court's constitutional orphan." (Justice Neil Gorsuch joined Thomas in a separate dissent last year that made a similar point.)

In the lawsuit decided yesterday, Rupp v. Becerra, the California Rifle and Pistol Association asked the court to rule that the 2016 Assault Weapons Control Act was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment and the Constitution's due process and takings clauses. The California law makes it a crime to manufacture, sell, import or transfer hundreds of popular semi-automatic firearms with a pistol grip or adjustable telescoping stock—and the ban on transfers includes gifts between parents, grandparents, and children.

California gun owners who legally owned such a rifle before December 31, 2016 have only a few choices: register it as an "assault rifle" (which imposes strict new requirements), modify it, sell it, or store it out of state. Failing to register by July 2018 is a crime. (Any bets on how many firearms actually will be?)

Judge Staton's opinion upholding the 2016 law underscores how widespread—and overt—the judicial resistance to Heller has become. Some excerpts from her opinion: "The legislature is permitted to reform its gun control regime incrementally…It is beyond question that promoting public safety and reducing incidents of gun violence are legitimate government interests… restrictions on semi-automatic weapons bear a rational relationship to the objective of public safety…" Does anyone think that a California judge would be so deferential to the legislature when evaluating a law that, say, restricts the availability of abortions?

This judicial rebellion is not limited to California and the 9th Circuit. It's present in other circuits, including the 2nd Circuit and the 4th Circuit, which has coughed up conclusions like "assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are not protected by the Second Amendment," despite both being in common use. Then there's the 7th Circuit, which opined: "If a ban on semiautomatic guns and large-capacity magazines reduces the perceived risk from a mass shooting, and makes the public feel safer as a result, that's a substantial benefit." Note where this logic leads us: If ban on certain books makes the public "feel safer," that surely counts as a "substantial benefit" allowing the law to be upheld as constitutional.

In the California carry case, decided Monday by Judge John Kronstadt, another Obama appointee, the California Rifle and Pistol Association argued that the state could not completely prohibit residents from carrying a firearm for self-defense. California has banned the open carry of firearms, and many metropolitan areas will not issue concealed carry permits—a combination that means millions of law-abiding residents cannot legally carry a firearm. (The case is called Flanagan vs. Becerra.)

Kronstadt granted requests from the state of California and the Los Angeles County Sheriff to dismiss the lawsuit. "The burden that [the state laws] impose, if any, on a right protected by the Second Amendment, is not severe…California's open-carry laws do not infringe upon the 'core' Second Amendment right of self-defense within the home," Kronstadt concluded.

The California Rifle and Pistol Association can, of course, appeal both cases. But everyone paying even the slightest bit of attention already knows what the outcome will be before the largely anti-gun 9th Circuit. And the Supreme Court will likely ignore the warnings from Justice Thomas and Justice Gorsuch and refuse to take the cases.

This is how the courts, quietly, one case at a time, without a vote, are making sure the Second Amendment simply will not apply within the state of California.

NEXT: 'All Gov't Support of Higher Ed Should Be Abolished': Live Debate in NYC, 5/14

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Congress needs to pass a law to demand national recognition of CCW permits. Fuck the states and their attempts to stifle Rights.

    1. I agree the law would be terrific–but no help at all to the honest folk of California. If you’re not allowed to OWN then universal carry doesn’t do any good at all.

      1. This means that out of state visitors can carry guns and your average law abiding, Clinton-voting Californian remains unarmed. That seems like the best of both worlds to me. Do you really want those nuts to carry guns?

        1. Sorry, are you suggesting that out-of-state visitors to California with a CCW valid in their state can carry while in California, because I’m nearly positive that they cannot. So far as I know, California has no reciprocity with other states for CCW.

          Also, you might want to remember that 1 in 8 Americans are also Californians; it’s the most populous state in the country.

          Perhaps we “nuts” have such few mass shooting precisely as a result of our restrictive gun laws?

          1. That’s the point of National Reciprocity: to require, from a national level, States like California to recognize the permits of other States, just as they require California to recognize out-of-State driver’s licenses.

            The national reciprocity law should also make it legal for someone to carry a weapon that the person is legally allowed to carry in the state from which the license is issued. Thus, someone carrying a Utah-legal gun, with a Utah permit, wouldn’t be prosecutable carrying in California.

            Since non-Utah residents can get a permit, this would mean that California would then have shall-issue carry of reasonable guns.

            We *sorely* need such a bill!

      2. It encourages more people to flee the sinking ship that is Calizuela.

      3. There are states that issue CCW permits to residents of other states, and an outright ban on owning handguns would violate Heller. Imagine Californians taking a weekend trip to Nevada, not for the gambling or hookers, but for a CCW training course.

        CCW permits won’t help with the “assault weapon” ban. But AR-15’s are now a weapon in common civilian use, so will the SC will bother to actually enforce its own precedents?

        1. There are already Californians traveling to Nevada for CCW training courses. Have been for years.

          1. And some of us just stay here.

          2. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

            This is what I do… Dailycash.us

    2. Yes, but then it’s a federal issue. And the Ds get elected. And then no-one can carry.

      Federalism is there for a reason. That which is (still) thought to be under the 10th amendment ought to be kept there.

      1. The Tenth Amendment says “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States…” That last part gets ignored.
        The Second Amendment, unlike, say the First, does not qualify who is prohibited from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms – it is a universal prohibition that should include the states.
        Thus, any state law, infringing on that right is unconstitutional.
        This isn’t one where the federalism of the Tenth applies.
        Maybe the incremental efforts at gun banning, in California, will lead to the courts making the correct call on that right being universal, unless an individualized due process is applied to restrict that, or any right, such as for a convicted felon.

        1. You are federalizing what never was federalized. The Bill of Rights only applied to the Feds, not the States (according to the original reading and writers).

          You could make a 14th amendment case against a state doing that, but that’s not what the original reading and writers would have done.

          Regardless of the (let’s face it, meaningless) Constitution, if you federalize the issue, the cat’s out of the bag. The Feds WILL decide who carries what and where.

          That’s a really bad thing in the long run. Can’t you see that?

    3. My last month paycheck was for 11000 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour…

      This is what I do…. http://www.onlinereviewtech.com

  2. Police depts should not have more fire power than the citizenry. Period.

    1. Exactly.

  3. Perhaps Texas, which IIRC issues carry permits should sue California in the Supreme Court to vindicate the right of its (Texas’) citizens.

    Of course the Supremes will find a way to avoid deciding that case, so I guess never mind.

    1. It would be fun to see them try this in the courts though…

    2. That wouldn’t work. State A affords its citizens rights that State B doesn’t, the Full Faith and Credit Clause wouldn’t require State B to afford citizens of State A the full scope of State A rights when they’re visiting State B.

      1. Now do DOMA

      2. I’m curious whether Texas can sue to protect the 2nd/14th Amendment rights of Texas citizens visiting California.

        I know states can’t sue the feds on behalf of the state’s citizens, but I wonder if they might sue other states on their citizens’ behalf.

        1. Did you read the article? Judges in California are justifying gun restrictions using the Heller decision, so there is no federal right being infringed that a Texan could sue for.

          If you’re really upset about this, stop voting for Republicans who then put more Republicans on the Supreme Court. The Roberts Court decided Heller this way, not some liberal functionary.

          1. Yeah, sure, because the alternative — having Democrats on the Supreme Court instead — is going to be the key to preserving our rights.

            The problem as I see it is we have two parties, one somewhat indifferent to our rights, and another outright hostile to our rights. As much as I don’t like the former, I’d rather have them on the Court than the latter.

      3. I’m curious whether Texas can sue to protect the 2nd/14th Amendment rights of Texas citizens visiting California.

        I know states can’t sue the feds on behalf of the state’s citizens, but I wonder if they might sue other states on their citizens’ behalf.

      4. “The full faith and credit clause doesn’t apply to guns just gay marriage”

        Libertarian-y af

      5. Virginia refused to recognize the Maryland marriage certificate of the Loving couple and jailed them for a year for violating the 1924 Virginia Racial Integrity Act as a mixed race couple. The resulting SCOTUS case ended up making the VRIA moot. AS I recall, seven years later 1974 or 1975 VA repealed the RIA

  4. Nuke the I-5 corridor today.

    1. From Sacramento south only, please. (though Woodland is getting iffy as more and more of those from Davis and Sacramento migrate a little north looking for more affordable housing after having voted for politicians and initiatives that made it more expensive to live in those two cities.)

      1. Are you sure? I-5 runs through Seattle and Portland too.

        1. You are right. After I posted my comment I realized that I should have added that the nuking could start again around Eugene, Oregon.

          1. You could just target any area with urban population density.

    2. The 5 runs through Orange County and San Diego County, two of the most conservative counties in California.

  5. Does anyone think that a California judge would be so deferential to the legislature when evaluating a law that, say, restricts the availability of abortions?

    But guns are designed to *kill*!

    1. Hmmm … So are abortions.

      1. The Progressive Left Establishment says otherwise….and says so again and again, as if repeating it will make it so.

        I happen to believe that what an abortion kills is not (yet) a human being. But I don’t think I can prove it, and I have yet to see anybody else do so in a way I consider convincing EVEN THOUGH I BELIEVE IT.

        The Pro-Choice faction appears to be scared to death to debate the issue on anything like its actual merits. One might almost think that they believe they are in the wrong….

        The issue is not when there are enough brain cells to think. IF that were a real criterion, then capping Nancy Pelosi would be legal. The issue is, what makes a human being something other than a collection of tissue, and the Progressive Left don’t want to touch that with a barge pole.

        Not that it matters. The way the Pro-Chose faction behaves, they are going to throw away ‘abortion rights’ by protecting ghouls like Kermit Gosnell and opposing parental notification laws.

        1. Well, if stopping a beating heart is not killing, what is?

        2. quote: The issue is, what makes a human being something other than a collection of tissue

          IF there is anything that makes a human being something other than a collection of tissue then that something does it job whether the human being is an hundred years old or just now conceived. When those two cells come together to make one cell, that single cell (even for the few moments it IS just one) has ALL the genetic data and ability to function that an hundred year old man has. At the point of conception that lump of cells is mot a dog, cat, fish, buffalo, or frog. It IS fully human. The only issue is one of degree, not kind. Of quantity not quality. Else why wouldn’t the horse veterinarian use frozen sperm from a whale and not a horse…. or a frog, when he wants to breed that throughbred mare? That “clump of cells” growing inside your wife is never going to become a tiger shark or a water buffalo.

      2. So sorry to see that you failed Sarcasm Awareness 101

    2. If there was a court restricting abortions we’d definitely see wall to wall coverage denouncing the decisions. It’s literally the only right popular with “right thinking” and so is probably the only right that’s safe

      1. And, yet, the prohibition of infringing on “the right to keep and bear arms” is specifically enumerated in the Supreme Law of the Land, while the “right” to kill an unborn human is not.

        1. No less an authority than conservative Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court Warren Burger said in 1991 that the NRA’s interpretation of the Second Amendment as providing individuals the right to bear arms was a fraud.

          Not to appeal to authority here, but this guy was a Nixon appointee, he was a Republican, and he was an assistant attorney general, and he was a federal appeals court judge before he was Chief Justice.

          Heller is so important because in the previous 220 years, the Supreme Court had NEVER found an individual right to bear arms in the Constitution. And yet somehow the Roberts Court miraculously did. Stare decisis my ass.

          1. I don’t care if Burger was appointed by Nixon; Nixon wasn’t all that conservative, and even conservative presidents haven’t had a good track record of appointing conservative judges.

            The fact is, pro-gun-rights defenders can (and often do) cite chapter and verse, all the Founding Fathers who made the case that the 2nd applies to individuals, while those who say that the NRA’s interpretation *never* back up their claims with quotes of the Founders, *particularly* those who requested the amendment we call the 2nd today.

            Why should I care one whit what one cherry-picked Supreme Court appointee has to say on the issue, particularly when the issue addressed is done so off the bench? There are *many* decisions that SCOTUS have made, that are plainly wrong; there are *many* opinions SCOTUS judges have expressed, that are plainly stupid.

            This is a truly obnoxious appeal to authority. It does *nothing* to strengthen your argument that it’s ok to ban guns.

  6. Unfortunately the Supreme Court didn’t just say, “The Second Amendment means what it says, just like all the other amendments.” They also said, “You can feel free to ignore it just like all the other amendments.”

  7. I don’t understand the issue. Libertarians are socially liberal and economically conservative. These are liberal decisions made by liberal judges, reviewing liberal laws passed by liberal politicians. Shouldn’t Reason embrace these decisions wholeheartedly unless they want to be called a bunch of yokels?

    1. In the US, “liberal” doesn’t mean “liberal”, it means “progressive” and “proto-fascist”.

      What used to be called “liberal” is now called “classically liberal” or “libertarian”.

      Thanks for asking.

      1. What happened to all of the libertarians? Most of the commenters here are authoritarian, disaffected, no-count right-wing yahoos.

        1. You’re the asshole defending stripping away gun rights.

          1. I’m the guy who believes our Constitution secures a right to possess a reasonable firearm for self-defense in the home. You appear to be a counterproductive, absolutist gun nut (as part of a general right-wing, authoritarian, stale kookiness).

            1. I like how people insert ‘reasonable’ when quoting an amendment that does not contain that word whatsoever, then pretend like they’re being intellectually honest with their commentary.

              Yeah, no, there is no ‘reasonable’ consideration there. If you want to add that into the 2nd Amendment, there is a process to do so. Why, then, do you not support a constitutional amendment to abolish or limit the 2nd amendment?

              1. I “reasonably” feel that “shall not be infringed” means what it says.

        2. As opposed to our resident authoritarian, disaffected, no-count left-wing yahoo, flinging vitriol at others like monkeys fling their shit, with the main difference being that monkey shit can at least be used for fertilizer.

        3. As opposed to left-wing solipsists who think their experiences are all that happened in human history.

          1. The authoritarian reverend trying to disarm the people…. bitching about authoritarians…. Obliviousness thy name is Kirkland…

        4. [Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland] Most of the commenters here are authoritarian, disaffected, no-count right-wing yahoos.

          You tell me: you and Hihn are the biggest fascists around here.

      2. You think liberal means proto-fascist eh? You could argue Mussolini was a proto-facist, I suppose, but fascism is a right-wing ideology, not a left-wing ideology. I think you might be thinking of communism.

        Put down the gun and read a book.

    2. No, you don’t understand the issue. “Libertarians are socially liberal and economically conservative” is a lazy person’s shorthand way of describing how libertarians fall on most issues. And for most issues, it will allow you to accurately predict where libertarians stand on the issue, but without giving you the underlying reason why. The underlying reason why is that on most social issues, a strong respect for individual rights results in supporting the same positions as liberals, and on most economic issues, a strong respect for individual rights results in supporting the same positions as conservatives.

      1. What you say was once true, but the radical “liberals” no longer support civil liberties. A brief canvas of college campus happenings will bear out what I’m saying. Free speech? Not so much. Freedom of religion? They don’t want any religion, and you can forget baking a cake accordingly. How about the right to peaceful assembly? not if you want to listen to a conservative speaker. Oh, and how about the right to a trial by a jury of ones peers …. in a college rape case? Forget it!

    3. Understand the issue.
      Libertarians being socially liberal and economically conservative is consequence, not a fundamental, of libertarian political philosophy.
      The fundamental is that you are free to do, act, or own anything you want as long as you do no harm to another person.
      Owning a gun comes under the libertarian freedom to own what you wish, and further is enhances your other libertarian rights to continue to live as you please and protect what you own.
      “Liberal” political philosophy is a brand name now, stolen from what it originally meant, and barely resembles anything actually liberal.
      A real liberal philosophy would include not infringing upon you peaceable ownership of self-defense tools.

    4. the ISSUE is that the State of California, way back in 1859, considered the entire constitution as written t that time and decided they wanted to join the union established under that document. And that document plainly declares that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed… by anyone/thing/law/rule.

      Now that stupid state is deciding , one judge at atime, “we had our fingers crossed behind our backs, we really did not mean it so neener neener neener.

      The Tenth Article of Ammendment declares that any powers not denied to a state remain with the Federal, and in the case of the right to arms, that power is specifically denied the states as well as fedGov. That text reads :shall NOT be infringed”.. California’s courts can employ all the doublespeak they want to, the right to arms remains untouchable by any level of government.

      1. Again, read a book before you comment so you know what you’re talking about.

        Gun owners always forget the first part: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…”

        That’s right, the government can’t infringe a militia’s right to keep and bear arms. The Amendment is silent on an individual’s gun rights.

        You might want to infer that the individual’s right to bear arms is there, but it’s not, and if you’re an originalist dipshit like Antonin Scalia, you can’t create a right that doesn’t exist in the text.

        That first clause is not disjunctive, it is operative: it explains the rationale for the Second Amendment.

        This reinterpretation of the Second Amendment is a modern phenomenon, and is a result of the NRA’s propaganda campaign in the ’70s.

        Educated people know the true history of the Second Amendment, and how the largest slaveholder in Virginia wanted Madison to change the wording so the government wouldn’t use it as a pretext to end slavery patrols.

        1. But the “modern NRA” interpretation comes from the fact that the 2nd Amendment is based on provisions found in existing State constitutions, some of which even had a similar explanatory clause.

          Furthermore, it’s not at all difficult to find writings created at the time of the Constitutional debates, making it clear that the Founders considered this right to be a right of the individual.

          Indeed, it is the position that the Second protects some sort of “collective” right (as if governments need to declare that they would never disarm themselves) that is the fraud that has been pushed on the American people over the last few decades.

    5. [soapbox]
      Gun control is as fundamentally flawed as prohibition of alcohol, prohibition of marijuana, or burning Beatle’s White Albums in response to the Manson Family Helter Skelter murders. Stop clinging to the tenets of voodoo criminology. The road to hades is paved with the unintended consequences of good intentions.

      “”He that is born to be a man,” says Wieland, in his “Peregrinus Proteus,” “neither should nor can be anything nobler, greater, or better than a man.” The fact is, that in efforts to soar above our nature, we invariably fall below it. Your reformist demigods are merely devils turned inside out.” — Edgar Allan Poe, Marginalia
      [/soapbox]

      1. Your premise is flawed. How many mass shootings occur in states with strict gun laws, and how many occur in states with loose gun laws? I suppose that’s just a coincidence?

        And remember: more people live in California than any other state, and yet it doesn’t have nearly the mass shootings. That is just so STRANGE, right?

        1. Yes, it is just a co?ncidence: Mass shootings are *very* rare — so rare, in fact, that statistical analysis of mass shootings is *meaningless*.

          Meanwhile, is it a co?ncidence that the murder capitols of the US are also the cities that have the most stringent gun laws? Seriously, the *worst* school shootings over the last couple of decades — about one or two per year — in Chicago are called “a typical weekend”.

  8. Good thing this will prevent gun crime and not embolden the criminals, right? Right!?

  9. “If a lower court treated another right so cavalierly, I have little doubt that this Court would intervene”

    Justice Thomas needs to brush up on his familiarity with ineffective assistance of counsel jurisprudence.

    1. Wow. You got him. He’s not a very good defender of that make believe amendment to the constitution

  10. It is beyond question that promoting public safety and reducing incidents of gun violence are legitimate government interests… restrictions on semi-automatic weapons bear a rational relationship to the objective of public safety

    A “rational relationship”? Like what?

    1. Rational basis is the doctrine SCOTUS created that allows federal judges to defer to legislators when they agree with them.

      1. Interestingly, the majority in Heller made it pretty clear that 2nd Amendment cases should be subject to a review standard higher than rational basis. Seems like a case that would be perfect for slapping this district court and the 9th Circuit down (yet again).

        1. I could be wrong, but if the SC can decide the governmental interest in public safety, much less defined by a rational basis test, is enough to completely revoke an understood universal right, then is there any limit the SC thinks the govt can’t go to achieve it’s own percieved goals? Say the US can’t compete globally due to falling birthrates. Would a govt mandate allowing federal agents to forcibly impregnate women at their own discression also pass such a test?

          also I love this part: “Second Amendment right of self-defense within the home”, that “within the home” clause is my favorite part of text of the 2A

          1. Absolutely, because in the home is the only place a militia is ever used – – – – – – – –

          2. WHERE in the Constitution do Fed or State governments find the “duty” to protect their “interest in public safety”? Seems to me the issue of “public safety” rests quarely upon the shouldes of… THE PEOPLE. Militi ARE the people, armed, skilled, equipped, to take care of “the security of a free state”. It is BECAUSE the PEOPLE have the duty to see to “the security of a freee state” that those same PEOPLE must not have their God-given right to arms limited, licensed, taxed, restricted, qualified…… j

        2. It would be a perfect case for slapping them down, if there were presently five votes on the Court that want them slapped down. There aren’t.

          What’s going on here is that one of the Justices in the Heller/McDonald majority has switched sides. Perhaps not entirely, but at least to the point where McDonald wouldn’t be upheld today.

          But nobody on the Court is sure of it, it just looks that way. So neither side wants to find out, and rack up some loss that could be hard to reverse later. So there aren’t the votes to grant certiori to 2nd amendment cases.

          If Kennedy quits and gets replaced with another Gorsuch, that will change, If he’s the Justice who flipped. Ginsberg being replaced would be more certain.

          1. What makes you say that Kennedy has switched sides? SCOTUS hasn’t ruled on a gun case since Heller and McDonald. It’s most recent 2nd Amendment case, Caetano v. Massachusetts, was favorable to 2nd Amendment advocates (weapons other than guns are covered by the 2nd Amendment). What evidence do we have that Kennedy has switched sides? Are you saying it’s just the denial of certiorari in some recent cases? How does that prove a side switch? Those votes, and the justices’ thinking, aren’t public.

      2. Yes, I understand the “rational basis” test. It’s bullshit.

  11. These commie pieces of shit could repeal the whole fucking US Constitution but you still have a natural right to defend yourself.

    I’m willing to die, literally die, before I gave up my weapons.

    I wonder how many fucking communists would be willing to risk their piece of shit lives trying to storm my house and take away my weapons?

    Fuck all you commie pieces of shit.

    1. Voting libertarian irritates commies more than anything you can do. It literally reverses socialism through spoiler vote leverage. You can also donate filthy lucre. That adds envy to their anger.

      1. Voting Libertarian when Bill Weld is the VP isn’t really much different from voting commie in terms of gun rights

        1. You make a valid point, Mr. Just Say’n.

      2. Voting libertarian? In the United States of America? Hilarious!

        You are throwing your vote away, you know that, right? In our system, no third-party can ever win a national election. Even Ross Perot didn’t come close.

        The two major parties have it locked up. They have the state governments, they have the machinery, they have the money…and they have the electors, which is most important for presidential elections.

        If the U.S. ever gets Instant Runoff Voting like Australia and other nations have, then a third party candidate might be able to win. But not as our system is designed right now, it’s a fantasy.

    2. How much funding and backing will they receive from monopolists/capitalists?

  12. Gun nuts are my favorite kooks. Entertainingly absolutist and loud, destined to lose over the long term.

    1. More razor sharp legal analysis from the Good Reverend. I can’t imagine why no one on Volokh takes you seriously. Reason readers should follow their lead.

      1. The Volokh Conspiracy libertarians took me seriously enough to censor me for using the term “cop succor.”

        And for making fun of conservatives.

        Carry on, clingers.

        1. Or maybe you were just insufferable.

          1. Not so much simply insuffetable as blustering, and a textbook case of the zenith of mixing ignorance with stupidity.

            1. Zenith or Nadir?

              I remember the old TV brand Zenith, Never saw a Nadir brand promoted.

    2. It won’t be easy, given the massive financial resources of the NRA, but we advocates of common sense gun safety legislation will indeed eventually prevail. The demographics are on our side, with an increasingly black and brown electorate more likely to support us instead of the gun fetishists. (This is another benefit of open borders, by the way.)

      1. Sure you will. And who, pray tell, is going to collect all 300 million guns?

        The police? Not enough of them and most of them are not itching to go door to door demanding firearms.

        Sniveling bureaucrats? [Laugh] Take that comedy act on the road.

        SJWs? They can’t handle a simple dressing down, let alone a gun owner telling them to crawl back into a hole.

        1. States can declare (as well as the Feds) an emergency state and local and adjacent state National Guard can then be called up for people control. They used this in New Orleans and surrounding parishes to go house to house and confiscate the guns and ammunition from the legal gun owner citizens. But they did not go after the illegal guns and ammunition (stated that it was too dangerous).

          To my knowledge the guns and ammunition were not returned, their excuse was “We were too busy to record who and where we got then let alone give a receipt”. They continued with “We done even know who collected individual guns let alone where they went”. It does not matter which political jurisdiction authority or government agency you go to they all say the same.

          So it has happened before and in the near past.

          1. Yeah, that was one city, a very localized issue.

            Speculate on trying to do that nationwide.

      2. Isn’t that what Hillary said last election?

      3. Last I checked, the past decade has been pretty good for the pro-2A crowd. Heller, McDonald, Caetano, liberalization (in the sense of great liberty to keep and bear arms) of gun laws in the majority of the states (if you don’t believe this, check out the development of concealed carry rights in the states over the last 10 years – it’s overwhelmingly in favor of the pro-2A view). What has the gun control crowd won? A few draconian laws in a minority of extremely blue states? Congratulations. The inertia is on the side of the pro-2A argument. There’s a very good chance that your state-level laws get struck down when SCOTUS gets the next perfect pro-2A case.

        1. I wish I was as optimistic as you. But unfortunately, even before Scalia’s death the SC denied cert in “perfect” 2A cases.

          We are moving towards being 2 separate countries, one where the 2A doesn’t not exist, like NJ, and one where it does, like my own AZ.

          What will happen as that mix becomes more pronounce is the question.

      4. And when (if) you do, and the results turns into Venezuela, Cambodia, Rwanda, or some other utopian hell-hole, don’t say that wasn’t what you intended.

        1. Careful, that straw man is flammable!

      5. A recent Zogby Poll (1 Mar 2018) surveyed a national sample of voting age Americans.

        56% of the general population support the 2nd Amendment, 28% oppose, 16% no opinion.
        65% of millennials (age 18-29) support, 23% oppose, 12% no opinion.

        Ethnicity:
        54% of Hispanics support, 29% oppose.
        46% of African Americans support, 36% oppose.
        59% of Whites support, 25% oppose.

        Politics:
        47% of Democrats support, 37% oppose.
        47% of Independents support, 27% oppose.
        86% of Republicans support, 18% oppose.

        And the Gallup polls have shown a decline in public support for
        (a) banning handguns since 1960, and
        (b) reinstating the 1994 Assualt Weapon Ban since its sunset in 2004.

    3. Yeah, it’s kooky to loudly defend an absolute human right, huh?

  13. I think the self defense argument is a mistake.
    The court is right: banning AR-15’s would not ban self defense.

    The second amendment is the last defense against a tyrannical government.
    In the context it was written a “militia” meant a volunteer army and not some state-run entity.
    If it did then the point of the amendment would be moot.

    Arguments for defense of the amendment should always include, even restrain themselves to, the original purpose.

    An AR-15 is not really intended for self-defense but a well regulated militia armed only with handguns is marginally better than one armed with slings and equally hampered.

    1. True enough overall, but the AR-15 is actually pretty damn good for self defense. It’s light, ergonomic, easier to aim than a pistol (like all long arms), accurate, has minimal felt recoil, and with the right bullet selection it will penetrate less building material than either pistol bullets or buckshot, while still having pretty good terminal effectiveness on bad guys.

    2. Well, thank God for you and your AR-15, which will certainly help you against the “tyrannical government” which has only stealth bombers, cruise missiles, drones, four branches of the military, the National Guard, nuclear weapons, nerve gas, and the active denial system to use against you while ignoring the Posse Comitatus Act.

      Read a book. The Second Amendment was not passed so you could defend yourself against the government. It was passed to protect slave patrols in the southern states so they could recapture escaped slaves and prevent slave uprisings. The entire amendment has racist origins.

      1. Yeah, small arms are completely 100% useless against the full might of the US Armed Forces! The insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan never stood a chance!

        Oh, wait: they held their own against us, didn’t they?

        But surely the Second Amendment MUST be to uphold slavery! Which explains why States that specifically forbade slavery had Second Amendment-like provisions in their Constitutions, *and* insisted that the Second Amendment be passed as a condition to adopting the Constitution in the first place.

        And meanwhile, we should quietly ignore the fact that gun laws far more often than not were passed, either explicitly, or (in the days of Reconstruction) with a wink and a nod to the KKK, to disarm blacks and Republicans.

        Sheesh! It’s not as though this history is hard to learn!

  14. Brazil just did the same thing and one of the politicians backing the move (and backing prophylaxis for rape victims) was impeached in a U.S. backed coup and the other is in jail. Meanwhile Catholic Brazil has one of the world’s highest gun violence death rates. I would wager (if christianofascists would let me) that this will not be as bad in pagan California. Still, if real statistics show a worsening (which I would bet on) the gunners will go after that. I personally vote libertarian and pay county, state and local dues–unlike (I’d wager) the swarm of fake name sockpuppets that shriek here on cue.

  15. As these laws continue to be upheld, more people against the laws simply up and leave. California is being essentially cleansed of political opposition.

    1. They are leaving more because of the growing expense and less because of an ideological conflict.
      California mindset is metastasizing and coming to your neighborhood soon.

      1. Both, economics and violation of citizens’ civil rights, are reasons to leave.

        1. So why did not blacks leave?

        2. So why did not blacks leave?

        3. Again, read a book. California’s economy is booming, and while Democrats do control the entire state government, nearly 30% are Republicans.

  16. Hmmm. I see a lot of “…Obama appointee…” sprinkled in there.

    Once again, my Trump vote feels like a good choice, all things considered.

    1. That vote was the best way to exhibit bigotry, backwardness, ignorance, and disaffection. For a fleeting time, our society’s downscale, left-behind losers attracted the attention of their betters.

      It won’t accomplish much, but it made the yahoos feel better, maybe even as good as a handful of the street pills they use to get through another deplorable day in our shambling backwaters.

      1. aaaaaand my Trump vote in 2020 will probably feel like an even better choice still. Thanks for firming up my decision.

        1. Indeed. Comment like Rev Arthur’s will very likely push me to vote for Trump for the first time in 2020.

      2. You do know how to turn a phrase, Reverend. That made me laugh out loud.

  17. The ‘core’ Second Amendment right is not one of self defence in the home but of limiting government power with the threat of a well regulated and armed rebellion.

    Constraining rights likes this makes it easier and easier to limit their scope. It opens rhe doors for ‘commom sense’ restroctions and public safety concerns. Its the same thing hate speech laws are doing for the first amendment.

    1. Where do you get this nonsense? Do you have ANY citations or links to back up this absurd opinion? Anything authoritative?

      A little history for the rubes out there…

      When the Constitution was ratified, the United States lacked a standing army, and so states kept militias, and not to use against the newly created federal government, but to use in wars against invading foreign powers (and also, sadly, to keep slaves in bondage in the southern states).

      Your “armed rebellion” is an infantile illusion. Americans are both too lazy and too cowardly to ever take up arms against our government…the same government which has a larger military than the next ten countries combined.

      1. And the Founders feared the Standing Army that the Constitution would permit, so the States (both slave and free) insisted on passing the Second as one of several conditions to ratify the Constitution.

        Considering how well insurgents have done in Iraq and Afghanistan, I see no reason why We the People can’t do well against our own armed forces, if it came to that. Assuming, of course, we aren’t disarmed first.

  18. Did they actually say that bearing arms means bearing them at home only?

    1. “California’s open-carry laws do not infringe upon the “core” Second Amendment right of self-defense within the home. Thus, they do not prohibit, or even restrict, Plaintiffs’ ability to use “arms in defense of hearth and home.”…Instead, they limit the open carrying of such arms in public, i.e., outside the home.”

      Well, they certainly come close to saying it, in any event.

      1. It’s a historical fact that no militiaman ever left his home during the American Revolution.

        1. This argument would play in certain quarters.

    2. It’s the exact same stance they take with freedom of religion. Should that be any surprise?

  19. First amendment; hate speech exception
    Second amendment; damn near everything exception
    Third amendment; not yet
    Fourth amendment; asset forfeiture without conviction, trial, or even arrest
    Fifth amendment; immunity
    Sixth amendment; trials take years, juries are screened to death, national security exceptions to open trials
    Seventh amendment; juries instructed on what to find as fact, facts withheld from juries
    Eighth amendment; bails still high
    Ninth amendment; even enumerated rights restricted
    Tenth amendment; see every cabinet position except state, treasury, courts, and military

    Explain to me again why we give a damn anymore.

    1. A depressingly accurate assessment. And all without amending the Constitution, because that would be ‘hard’ I suppose. (And it would be ‘hard’ because they know there isn’t wide spread support, so they attack it through the judiciary which is ironically the branch tasked with defending it.)

  20. I think Heller was a pretty nice pound of flesh for you gun fetishist psychopaths. Much more than a pound, in fact, of actual flesh.

    This is a constitutional conflict and you are the ones who deserve to lose.

    1. Drugs have won the War on Drugs. Guns will win the upcoming War on Guns.

      1. ^This.

      2. What planet are you living on? It’s the very universality of guns in the U.S. which will eventually be the demise of our ability to own them.

        We’re averaging more than one school shooting per week in 2018. Just how long do you think the average voter with kids is going to put up with that? It sure won’t be forever.

        Enjoy your guns while you still have them, because in our lifetime, this country’s gun laws will start to mirror California’s more and more.

        And do you know why? Because like it or not, California and New York often lead the country in new legislation.

        1. The rest of the country has been leading the way in passing concealed carry and now unlicensed constitutional carry. Every time these restrictions are loosened, at worse, nothing happens, but more often than not, the murder rate goes down.

          New York and California have been among the last States to hold out against this trend. When will they stop?

          Meanwhile, it’s clear that mass shootings are copycat crimes that for the most part can be traced to Columbine. When is the Press going to stop giving these monsters the fifteen minutes of fame they crave? Do we need a law prohibiting news outlets from making these events sensational national events? Every time one of these things happens, it becomes a little more normal, and someone a little less crazy decides it’s the thing to do.

          And so far, we’ve been *very* lucky. Everyone’s fixated on the guns! Had the Columbine monsters succeeded with their original plan, (1) there would be no mass shootings in the news, and (2) the death tolls of the things that *would* be in the news would be *much* worse.

          What’s *really* scary is the thought that one day, a Columbine emulator might just say “oh, screw guns! I’m going to go with Columbine Plan A!” and things will go downhill from there.

    2. Wouldn’t “gun fetishist psychopath” more accurately apply to someone, like yourself, who is willing to use the violent power of the federal government to achieve any of his preferred objectives?

      1. Well it takes a special kind of crazy to describe taxation as violence but shooting someone in the face as a constitutional right.

        1. Was that person the guy robbing you? At gunpoint?

        2. I’ll tell you what. We’ll stop referring to taxation as violence if the police who come to arrest tax evaders do so without guns, or knives, or spears, or arrows, or batons, or brass knuckles, or even fisticuffs and wrestling moves.

          Deal?

          Oh, and when the police, the criminals, and all toe soldiers in the world promise to give up all their weapons, and demonstrate mechanisms (not just laws) that will guarantee they will be forever unarmed, we’ll *consider* repealing the Second Amendment.

    3. Removal of the 2nd will be swiftly followed by removal of the 1st. Then you’d better STFU Comrade, unless you’d like a trip around “The Gulag Archipelago!”

      1. Do you idiots never travel to any other country?

        1. Come on, these guys can’t afford a trip to Pittsburgh, let alone leave ‘Murica!

          1. If you like Europe’s laws so much, why don’t you go and live there, and leave those who value freedom to celebrate it in peace?

            Seriously: there’s no shortage of countries in the world that have central authorities trying to run anything. America is the *one* place where people are *trying* to carve out a society that values freedom, and slavers like you want to take even that little bit away!

  21. Who said they could replace “shall not be infringed” with “wouldn’t be substantially burdened”, anyway?

  22. What I find remarkable is that tons of lower courts think they are quoting Heller that the “core” Second Amendment is the defense of the home. The word “core” does not appear in the majority opinion, only in a dissent.

    1. It’s a common tactic for lower courts. The only way to stop it is for the higher courts (up to and including SCOTUS, if necessary) to slap them down. Unfortunately, that hasn’t happened yet.

  23. That old saying is agonizingly true: “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” We can only hope most gun owners are willing to become discreet “outlaws.”

  24. “But, alas, that was not political reality. California judges, especially in cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles, have creatively interpreted the Heller decision into a constitutional near-nullity. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has upheld those decisions.”

    This is what happens when you have a lawless, results oriented judiciary, which has cheerleaders here when their rulings favor things like open borders. However, these justices guiding light tends to be social justice, not liberty.

  25. Good news from overseas! Remember Paris “we surrender” France? Importers of whack-job Saracen berserkers running amok? Amazon now features a line of “Defend Paris” attitudewear that has nothing to do with the latest Ribbentropp-Molotov Econazi Carbon Tax Weather Cassandraism accord. The logo is an AK with Woodstock dove! Being prepared to kick ass as the path to being left alone is finally sinking in to the French mentality. California will be next, you watch…

  26. Oh, the Hihn thing is just so exhausting. It shrieks about how everyone is a psycho while posting utterly off-the-rails rants in bold type. And it watches responses come in on a spittle-covered monitor.

    I know it’s nigh impossible, but ignoring it would be so much better.

    At least OpenBordersLiberaltarian is entertaining. It’s fun to grade his efforts.

  27. To the freedom loving citizens of California… Arizona welcomes you!

    1. To the freedom loving citizens of California… if you blow past Arizona and end up here, make sure you left your insane Cali politics behind you – yes we know “That’s not how you did it in California”, we do it differently and that why we are better and the reason you wanted to come here in the first place.

      1. Only morons refer to California as “Cali”…what the fuck is that?

        California’s 36M people are just itching to move to the backwater retardvilles of Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. Maybe so our kids can get shot at school too?

        You just keep telling yourself how star spangled awesome you are while we have the best jobs, economy, industry, schools, and people.

        1. if UHaul prices are any indication — and they are — that is *exactly* what is happening. It’s only a matter of time before UHaul starts *paying* people who want to go to California.

  28. My Buddy’s mom makes $77 hourly on the computer . She has been laid off for five months but last month her check was $18713 just working on the computer for a few hours. try this web-site

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.seekcyber.com

  29. Amendment II
    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

    All of Commifornia’s little unconstitutional gun grabbing is just illegal. Its up to the residents of that state to fight. Most of the judges are clearly traitorous pieces of shit.

  30. When judges act as if they are above the law of the land, they must be disabused of this notion. Using liar’s language to twist the meaning of “what is is” cannot be a defense against proper observance of clearly written law with a long history of SCOTUS clarification!

    Trump should establish a much stronger judicial review panel to evaluate the decisions of justices and courts. If they are reversed too often, or their decisions are clearly political, they should be replaced with judges who can more precisely interpret the law.
    We don’t need your law school rejects and “constitutional scholars” like Obama legislating from the bench!

  31. If a lower court treated another right so cavalierly, I have little doubt that this Court would intervene

  32. Be afwaid. Be vewy afwaid.

  33. From the tone of the article, you’d think that it’s only California… it isn’t. These decisions are actually based on the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Act (the Federal Assault Weapons Ban) which was enacted as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. (The prohibitions expired on September 13, 2004.) This law was cleared by our Supreme Court at the time as acceptable and not abridging the 2nd Amendment.

    Further, it has been tested in several other states…

    – U.S. top court spurns challenge to Maryland assault weapons ban

    – Supreme Court allows assault weapons bans in NY, CT

    Three U.S. states passed assault weapons bans before Congress passed the federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994: California in 1989, New Jersey in 1990, and Connecticut in 1993. Four others passed assault weapons bans before AWB 1994 expired in 2004: Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts and New York.

    A quick look at this map shows clearly that sensible gun restrictions actually does work. Go figure! But, if you find it a burden, then move to a more gun friendly and deadly state..

    Higher Gun Death Rates In States With Weak Gun Laws And High Ownership: Report!

    https://bit.ly/2I9EmZh

    1. A quick look at this map shows clearly that sensible gun restrictions actually does work. Go figure!

      John B. Egan conveniently ignores his vibrant urban ghettos.

    2. Try again! Go look at Idaho, the Dakotas, many southern states. What one really sees in all the highest murder rate areas is a high black population, nothing more and nothing less. Hispanics also commit murder at higher rates than whites, so many previously safe states are worse than they used to be.

      It’s a people problem, not a gun problem.

    3. “A quick look at this map shows clearly that sensible gun restrictions actually does work. Go figure! But, if you find it a burden, then move to a more gun friendly and deadly state..” – – Oh, yes. We can’t have THOSE KIND of people congregating around here… this is a RESPECTABLE establishment… why they would lower our property values if we allowed them to move in next to us! And whatever would our daughters do if they were to walk down the streets with some of those savage (shudder) GUN OWNERS loitering about… reeking of gun oil and corrupting the neighborhood with their weird ideas… why can’t their kind just move and go live somewhere else?

  34. CA is now a foreign country, one without U.S. Consulates.

  35. Whatever the expected outcome they need to appeal all the way to the Supreme Court. If they actually accept the case they should win with the mix in there now.

  36. The “substantial benefit” exemption doesn’t appear anywhere in the second amendment that I am aware of.

  37. If you must ask permission for something – it is not a Right.
    If we can all agree that:
    1. Self defense against any unlawful attack is a basic human right.
    2. That as a basic human right, self defense is and should always be considered a Civil Right of the People and thus the exercise of that right must be immune from restriction, infringement, licensing or taxation by Government at any level.
    3. That the Civil Rights of the People are not subject to the approval of the Majority Opinion and belong to every Individual regardless of their social status.
    4. That any infringement, restriction, licensing requirements or taxation levied on the free exercise of a Civil Right is a violation of that right.
    5. That any law, policy or rule that prohibits or discourages the free exercise of any Civil Right is an infringement on that right.
    6. That if a law, policy or rule that prohibits or discourages a Citizen from legally acquiring the tools, weapons or means to freely exercise their Civil Rights, then their rights have been infringed.
    -Then it follows that those who advocate for the preservation of the right of the People to keep and bear arms are, in fact, Civil Rights advocates. It also follows that those who oppose the right of the People to keep and bear arms are against the People’s civil rights.
    We have a word for people who advocate for or try to use the force of law to infringe on the civil rights of others: we call them Bigots. ?

  38. Please change the headline to read, “2 New Court Decisions Are Quietly Violating Californians’ Second Amendment Rights.”

  39. Is it a crime to register ones you don’t own?

  40. The left acts in bad faith on the 2nd Amendment issue. It’s not even a debate anymore.

  41. “Even an outright ban on certain types of speech does not substantially burden the First Amendment right,” wrote Judge Josephine Staton, a Barack Obama appointee in Santa Ana, California. Staton suggested that if saying mean things were outlawed, Californians “would be left with myriad options for self-expression?including not being a poop head, the ‘quintessential’ self-expression.”

  42. I keep re-reading the 2A and keep missing the part about it applying to HOME defense only, maybe one of the grabbers can enlighten me?

  43. First of all, I don’t care what the current interpretation of the court is, even Scalia’s.
    And if the 1994 ban made the NRA helpless, why didn’t it limit all of us to bolt action rifles? It simply went after ‘scary’ guns.

    The following is the issue I was arguing with:

    “Kronstadt granted requests from the state of California and the Los Angeles County Sheriff to dismiss the lawsuit. “The burden that [the state laws] impose, if any, on a right protected by the Second Amendment, is not severe…California’s open-carry laws do not infringe upon the ‘core’ Second Amendment right of self-defense within the home,” Kronstadt concluded.”

    This is a federal judge, flat out using his opinion to define the 2A and self-defense.
    He has no problem making such proclamations for us little people, while he lives and works under the armed protection of the government.

  44. This is perfectly fine with me because gun laws should be a state issue as they were before 1934. When crime is completely out of control in California and the only people left are government loving leftists, the true result of this type of moronic law will be clear. At the city level, like in Chicago, it is too easy to make excuses. However, when the entire state of California becomes Chicago and the people realize they have no protection because the government has make sure this is the case, the truth will be crystal clear.

    1. Those powers not specifically addressed in the Constitution are left to the states. However, the Constitutional does address the issue of the right to bear arms so they are not a state issue, they are a Constitutional issue and the Constitution is very explicit.

  45. The author conveniently ignores all of the First Amendment, both free speech and religion, limitations that exist in the US. He tries to make it sound like the Second Amendment is being treated differently. It’s not. Commercial speech, speech inciting violence, threatening speech, fraud, etc are all legally restricted. Further, the state is able to limit the ways in which its employees (representatives) are able to lead prayer and how religious speech is limited when it overlaps government.

    It’s all just a big right-wing whining session about how not being able to own a bazooka is a civil rights violation.

    1. Please demonstrate where ‘right wing’ people have demanded to own a ‘bazooka’.

  46. Once Trump appoints at least one if not two other SCOTUS Justices, these cases will be overturned as being what they are; unconstitutional.

  47. The Constitution is very explicit on this issue. “The right to bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed upon”. Additionally, the authors of the Constitution weren’t concerned about citizens of the United States being able to hunt then they had the second amendment in mind. They were concerned about citizens protecting themselves from a government gone rogue!

  48. In all seriousness here about this subject (I’ll ignore the obvious troll that will reply):

    I was in an “ok” area of LA the other day that borders a very bad area of LA. Sitting in a coffee shop working alongside others. In comes a youngish white crazy-eyed male, tweaking or on something similar. He was behaving so to speak, but he went directly to the counter and kept asking the employees and others where the nearest emergency room was with no apparent injury. They kind of told him and he lingered, then thanked them then left.

    BUT, the entire time all I could do was stare at the huge sheathed knife sitting pronounced on his hip. I was so angry with myself and LA/California that I was suddenly behind a table, no exits to either side, sitting pretty as a young lamb with nothing to stop this tweaker the moment he lost it and started slashing.

    See, this is not my ‘home’, so therefore according to CA & LA, I have no right to self defense. But don’t worry, cops would arrive 5-10 minutes after the damage was done to take photos and type a report.
    FFS.

  49. In all seriousness here about this subject (I’ll ignore the obvious troll that will reply):

    I was in an “ok” area of LA the other day that borders a very bad area of LA. Sitting in a coffee shop working alongside others. In comes a youngish white crazy-eyed male, tweaking or on something similar. He was behaving so to speak, but he went directly to the counter and kept asking the employees and others where the nearest emergency room was with no apparent injury. They kind of told him and he lingered, then thanked them then left.

    BUT, the entire time all I could do was stare at the huge sheathed knife sitting pronounced on his hip. I was so angry with myself and LA/California that I was suddenly behind a table, no exits to either side, sitting pretty as a young lamb with nothing to stop this tweaker the moment he lost it and started slashing.

    See, this is not my ‘home’, so therefore according to CA & LA, I have no right to self defense. But don’t worry, cops would arrive 5-10 minutes after the damage was done to take photos and type a report.
    FFS.

  50. “Lose” Wrong tense.

  51. I believe a right to engage in commerce buying and selling a legal and legally protected item or items is a good candidate for a Ninth Amendment challenge. The second does not, in fact, protect that activity. It is a hair splitting, fine line but a recognizable one. And all the 9th circuit needs to play havoc with us. The saying goes, the court will give the correct answer to the wrong question. Which they have.

  52. Courts have ruled, time and again, that police have no affirmative responsibility to protect citizens. The job of government is NOT to protect citizens. The job of government is to protect our pre-existing rights. The constitution doesn’t grant any new rights. It merely lists our pre-existing rights as human beings..

  53. I essentially started three weeks past and that i makes $385 benefit $135 to $a hundred and fifty consistently simply by working at the internet from domestic. I made ina long term! “a great deal obliged to you for giving American explicit this remarkable opportunity to earn more money from domestic. This in addition coins has adjusted my lifestyles in such quite a few manners by which, supply you!”. go to this website online domestic media tech tab for extra element thank you .
    http://www.geosalary.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.