Gavin Newsom Defies the Supreme Court's 'Very Bad Ruling' on the Right To Bear Arms
California made carry permits easier to obtain but nearly impossible to use.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom thinks the Constitution should be amended to accommodate the gun regulations he favors. But in the meantime, he is trying out a different strategy: If we ignore the Second Amendment, maybe it will go away.
In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right to carry guns in public for self-defense, saying states could not require residents to demonstrate a "special need" before allowing them to exercise that right. Newsom responded to what he called a "very bad ruling" by backing a new law that makes carry permits easier to obtain but nearly impossible to use.
Senate Bill 2 bans guns from 26 categories of "sensitive places," including parks, playgrounds, zoos, libraries, museums, banks, hospitals, houses of worship, public transportation, stadiums, athletic facilities, casinos, bars, and restaurants that serve alcohol. The list also covers any "privately owned commercial establishment that is open to the public" unless the owner "clearly and conspicuously posts a sign at the entrance" saying guns are allowed.
S.B. 2 "turns nearly every public place in California into a 'sensitive place,' effectively abolishing the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding and exceptionally qualified citizens to be armed and to defend themselves in public," U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney noted last month, when he issued a preliminary injunction barring California from enforcing many of the law's provisions. "California will not allow concealed carry permitholders to effectively practice what the Second Amendment promises. SB2's coverage is sweeping, repugnant to the Second Amendment, and openly defiant of the Supreme Court."
Carney's response to May v. Bonta, a lawsuit challenging S.B. 2, was not surprising. New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and Hawaii have attempted similar end runs around the Supreme Court's decision, provoking lawsuits that in each case resulted in a court order blocking at least some of the challenged restrictions.
Undeterred by those warnings, Newsom and his legislative allies are hoping that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which historically has been highly sympathetic to gun control, will bless their blatant trickery. On Saturday, the appeals court dissolved an administrative stay that briefly blocked Carney's injunction, which means the new gun-free zones are on hold until it decides the case.
California has the burden of showing that each of its location-specific gun bans is "consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation"—the test that the Supreme Court has said gun control laws must pass. But even without a detailed analysis, the overall impact of the state's new rules is plainly inconsistent with the right recognized by the Supreme Court.
Under S.B. 2, the plaintiffs in May v. Bonta note, "Californians who desire to exercise their enumerated right to carry are essentially limited to some streets and sidewalks (so long as those public places are not adjacent to certain other 'sensitive' places), plus a few businesses willing to post a 'guns allowed' sign at the risk of potentially losing other customers by doing so." The law "creates a patchwork quilt of locations where Second Amendment rights may and may not be exercised, thus making exercise of the right so impractical and legally risky in practice that ordinary citizens will be deterred from even attempting to exercise their rights in the first place."
That, of course, is the whole idea. S.B. 2 itself notes that restricting the discretion of licensing officials, as the Supreme Court's ruling required California to do, could have opened the door to "broadly allowing individuals to carry firearms in most public areas." Deeming that outcome intolerable, legislators instead decreed that guns may not be carried in most public areas.
At the press conference announcing the introduction of S.B. 2, the complaint in May v. Bonta notes, Newsom "used air quotes when discussing the 'right' to carry firearms outside the home, making his contempt for the Constitution clear." Newsom might as well have held up a single finger, aimed directly at the Supreme Court.
© Copyright 2024 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Now defend yourself with your firearm in your own home, we dare you.
I'm making over $7k a month working component time. I saved hearing other people inform me Qf how lots cash they could make online so I decided to look at it. Well, it turned into all proper and has definitely modified my life. Get this today by follow instructions====>>> http://Www.Smartcareer1.com
Same law passed in New York. Our local District Attorney called it "unintelligible, unconstitutional, and unenforceable". Most everyone ignored it. Even the Second Circuit struck down part of it. The Supreme Court will gut it as clearly unconstitutional.
Resistance, non-compliance en masse leads to nullification. This is the constitutional response to unconstitutional edicts.
Notice how the headline writer framed this ( falsely) as Newsom standing up to something “very bad.” All because Koch hates DeSantis and lives open borders. Start getting ready for “ the libertarian case for Gavin Newsom,” in the October 2024 issue of Reason.
Newsom risking 10 years in federal prison, all to deny Californians their civil rights under color of law? Except no one ever gets prosecuted for that, the case just goes to court and the law gets struck down, until some other state tries some other end run around it.
Well, we need a federal government that is willing to prosecute and imprison politicians like Newsom.
No, what we need is officials who aren't demagogues pushing their constituents' emotional hot buttons grandstanding to promote their own political careers. When the constituents finally realize that they're being played by lawyers who prefer receiving high salaries, rubbing elbows with the high and mighty and playing power games to eking out a living by writing wills and divorces, they will stop voting for anyone wearing a nice suit flashing million dollar teeth who promises them whatever they want to hear. But for now the suckers will keep rooting for their political team like its some kind of game and holding tailgate rallies before the big match.
They've realized this for years. What's going on should be plenty of evidence that they either don't care, or support what these people are doing.
Just further evidence that western society as a whole needs to break up for its own good.
Correct, file a suit including Rodney King Act Violation where ANY part of the State Law has already been determined unconstitutional by SCOTUS this includes ANY JUDGE that attempts to uphold a law already determined unconstitutional. File the actions, those persons have NO immunity at all.
Every lawmaker who voted for it, the authors of the bill, the governor for signing and add CONSPIRACY to violate Constitutional RIGHTS under color of law.
You are correct that 10 years is the sentence, This could overturn the entire California House and Senate in a quick and decisive manner. Also those involved would have NO RIGHT to any State money or services in Defense, they would be without any immunity.
If the criteria is merely that a law is (or is found to be) unconstitutional and violates enumerated rights from the first 10 amendments, that might cover as much as 20% of the CA legislative and Executive agenda for the last three years, or maybe even farther back.
The primary motivation of the "Calexit" movement, after the TDS is peeled away was to free the CA State government from having to comply with 1A, 2A, 4A, 5A (in "me too" cases at least), and 6A and turning it into a "national" government which would also not be subject to any restrictions under 9A, or 10A.
Why is this a bad thing? They're just tired of all the school shootings and gang violence in the ghetto. Remember that California enacted the assault weapons ban in 1989 after a gang shootout in Stockholm left a bunch of kids dead.
What we need are harsh, brutal, anti-crime measures to deal with the savages who prey upon innocent kids in the ghetto!
- relaxed standards for the use of force
- relaxed standards to make an arrest
- relaxed standards to determine guilt
- constant patrols by loud armored vehicles
- constant, low-altitude helicopter patrols
- internal passports
- young men deemed to be at a high risk to commit crime should be required to live in barbed-wire enclosed hostels, so the police can better track their movements.
Remember that California enacted the assault weapons ban in 1989 after a gang shootout in Stockholm left a bunch of kids dead.
If only Stephanie Kuhen, Joseph Arthur Swift, and Jamiel Andre Shaw could tell you how that worked out.
Why is this a bad thing? They’re just tired of all the school shootings and gang violence in the ghetto.
Because gun regulation for legal, law abiding citizens in low crime areas have nothing to do with "violence in the ghetto".
What we need are harsh, brutal, anti-crime measures to deal with the savages who prey upon innocent kids in the ghetto!
Those people vote overwhelmingly for progressives and Democrats, so let them live with the consequences: gun laws should be local.
Those people vote overwhelmingly for progressives and Democrats, so let them live with the consequences: gun laws should be local.
Gun laws shouldn't exist. I shouldn't be deprived of my rights simply because I had to work in California for a week.
The cops know who the crook and the mugger and the carjacker and the gang member are. They're not going after people in low-crime areas.
I'll pass on your police state and provide my own protection.
The crook, the mugger, and the carjacker perhaps ironically do not care much about gun free zones. Those zones exist exclusively to punish people who are otherwise not doing any harm to society besides existing in a place with a kind of property they are legally entitled to own.
ZCRAZY: "They’re not going after people in low-crime areas."
The Vince Ricci case noted above says otherwise.
Indeed, gun laws shouldn't exist: whether you can or cannot carry a gun should be decided by private property owners, and all land should be privately owned. But the effect is the same: local decision making as to whether you can or cannot carry a gun.
You shouldn't have the right to work in California. Stay in Idaho, Bobby.
Is this supposed to be some kind of parody, or what?
Damned Poe again; it is often hard to tell.
"Remember that California enacted the assault weapons ban in 1989 after a gang shootout in Stockholm left a bunch of kids dead."
It was Stockton, California and it wasn't a gang shootout. It was an evil, racist piece of shit who decided he needed to kill some kids. To give himself more time he set off a bomb in his car that was parked across town to create a longer police response time. Thank goodness he didn't drive the car filled with explosives into the school. He would have killed a lot more kids than he did using a rifle.
There have been very few "mass shootings" which wouldn't have been far more deadly if something other than firearms had been used. Las Vegas might be the only one where guns were key to the carnage since the shooter was so far from the crowd at the time; although if he'd figured out a way to detonate one of the large airport fuel tanks that were next to where the music festival was happening, maybe that could have been much worse as well.
If you read the books written years later which tell the more accurate version of what happened at Columbine HS, the primary plan in that attack was to use pipe bombs, but when they didn't go off (instead of "the Matrix", people would have been ripshit about the movie "Heathers" having inspired the whole thing), shooting was "plan B"; also the kid who masterminded it all was actually the bully not the victim according to that accounting.
Was this the same Gavin Newsom who enacted a moratorium on the death penalty?
Ending the death penalty in CA was pretty much a symbolic move, and I think it happened before Newsom became Governor. Whenever it was done, there hadn't actually been an execution of an inmate on "death row" in at least a decade anyway; the unofficial mode of execution was already "death by old age".
Would someone please explain this?
I have seen many articles explaining the trial court's obviously correct decision.
I have seen many articles explaining the 9th Circus's obviously bullshit stay.
I have seen zero articles actually explaining why the stay was "dissolved".
It is confusing, but there are different configurations of "the 9th Circuit" which have weighed in on this since the district court's original injunction was issued.
First, the law was blocked (by the district court), then un-blocked (by some 9th Circuit judges), then blocked again (by a different 9th Circuit panel). I believe there is yet another possible 9th Circuit proceeding at which the law will (probably) again be un-blocked and therefore enforced.
And there things will stand (as far as the 9th Circuit is concerned), until the Supreme Court takes the case, if they decide to grant a petition for certiorari (and if they strike the 9th Circuit down).
Yes, but that's all I hear. I read the grounds for the trial court block and the 9th Circus stay, but zero about the grounds for the latest 9th Circus dissolve. I'm sure not going to download some PDF and wade through buckets of legalese.
The merits panel (the judges who actually hear California's appeal) ordered the stay ended. I suspect this is a good sign.
Esp since they apparently pointed out that most of the bans on carrying firearms in sensitive places do not have relevant historical analogues (see Bruen). For example, in parts of the country, at the time that the Bill of Rights was enacted, it was expected that you would come to church every Sunday armed.
Gov. Newsom is channeling Gov. Wallace:
"Massive Resistance!"
"Gun control now, gun control tomorrow, gun control forever!"
Newsom Engages in Insurrection
By which definition?
His actions may be unlawful, but I don't think they meet any reasonable test for "insurrection" (unlike the actions of you-know-who).
But, Newsom is a prick, so if you really think you can get him DQ'd from office based on the 14th Amendment, please go for it. I'd even send you a few bucks (if it weren't for the fact that you will probably lose all your money).
Newsom is saying that California is not subject to the Constitution of the United States. His illegal law will be enforced by armed California police officers. This seems like a pretty clear example of armed resistance to the authority of the Supreme Court (which is just as legitimate a branch of government as the other two, despite the constant media barrage intended to discredit it).
Newsom's actions here are categorically worse than anything Trump ever did.
What's going on is that politicians are realizing what Andrew Jackson did--that the Supreme Court's authority only goes as far as the executive's willingness to accept and enforce their decisions.
Isn't it the judicial system that sentences people? Could the Supreme Court not simply declare, upon overturning the law, that Newsome was being sentenced for the crimes he committed in signing the law, and remand him to a federal penitentiary in Texas?
I get where you're coming from, but has that ever happened in the entire court's history? Plus, these are civil suits, not criminal ones. A Republican DoJ would actually have to charge him with a crime and get it to the SC in the first place.
By the definition of interfering with the proper functioning of government - the man keeps disobeying the USSC.
The affects of his actions disrupt government far wider than a few hundred people wandering around Congress.
Gavin Newsome is a worthless sack of rotting hog cocks.
Experience the epitome of gaming pleasure with The Best Of The Best Game!!!! Dive into the action at https://mobi-space.ru/skachat-1xbet-na-android/ on Android! Explore a realm of excitement, impeccable graphics, and captivating gameplay. The Best Of The Best Game!!!! awaits your conquest. Join Mobi Space for a gaming escapade like no other, promising endless fun and thrilling adventures!
How many Reason writers will "reluctantly" back Newsom as the Dem POTUS candidate when Biden inevitably drops/is forced out?
90%?
It's a bit like asking how many Alt-right Reason commenters will still vote for Trump, even after he's been convicted of 91 felonies.
If the race comes down to Trump (with all the convictions you want) v Newsom (with all his baggage) I still vote Trump.
Mainly because it will make people like you angry and engage in public displays of sadness. No other reason.
It’s a bit like asking how many Alt-right Reason commenters will still vote for Trump, even after he’s been convicted of 91 felonies.
Political prosecutions and convictions by authoritarian, socialist regimes are a badge of honor, after the fall of the USSR, after the fall of communist regimes in South America and Asia, and after the fall of the Biden regime.
Are you sayin' that the walls r clozin' in on Trump!!!!
The other shoe's about to drop?
LOL, I never voted for him in the first place and still won't.
But I like that he's been a total chaos agent within the American political system, if nothing else to expose just how corrupt, self-serving, and protective the nation's globohomo establishment and elites really are of their power and the ruthlessness that the posses to push their agenda even in the face of significant resistance to it.
We all now how this ends up eventually, no matter what kind of hand-waving the centrists do that people just won't shut up and cheerfully do what they're told, especially the bitch-made ones in the center-right.
I will vote for Trump again (3x time). Not because I like Trump, I can't stand him.
But
* Democrats are so far insane now and anti-American
* Trump is about Trump. He lies, he cheats, but it's about him looking good making the country better so he can get kudos. He had some good polices written for him.
* On the other hand, Democrats are out to remake America because it's wrong. They don't believe in responsibility. They don't believe in laws. They think everything belongs to them. They also believe cheating to win is ok as long as it helps them.
* While yes, we make fun of some MAGA folks, are you telling me that the Democrats don't live in more fantasyland? Blue cities are paradises? Laws on single out Black people (Which isn't true), we are only hiring 87K IRS for rich people taxes.
So I'll take Orange Man bad because at least I know I'll have a gas stove, and be able to drive a car.
Good point, agree 100% - I'm definitely no Trump fan either but the actions of the left are so much worse nowadays that I'd damn near vote for anyone that doesn't have a D next to their name at this point
Never, ever, vote for a democrat.
50-years ago all the gun crime was going to stop if they could just get their initial gun-control measures past the courts upholding blatantly unmissable wording in the US Constitution.
The left will never stop trying to conquer the USA.. Never... One more step away from Individual Liberty and Justice for all ... One more step ... one more step ... one more step...
And the right will never be effective at stopping them inside high-density urban center fiefdoms. Meanwhile the right is busy trying to replace the Constitution with the Ten Commandments. Excuses, excuses, everywhere with only slogans to drink. Left this ... right that ... libertarians debating on the sidelines.
Meanwhile the right is busy trying to replace the Constitution with the Ten Commandments.
LOL, I don't remember the right to keep and bear arms being listed in the Ten Commandments anywhere. The left sure seems intent on making violations of the 10th into global policy, though.
Complaining about "Christian Nationalism" is just another left-wing gayop.
Not met very many conservatives (I've lived in Idaho, Alaska, Texas, and Montana, to name a few spots) who are proposing replacing the Constitution with the ten commandments. Seems a far fetched.
Which clause of the Ten Commandments allocates legislative and taxing powers?
Newsom is a very bad man.
Best said with the accent of Apu in Seinfeld.
Mr. Babu Batt Pakistani restauranteur extraordinaire, not Mr. Apu Quicky-Mart.
What other list of accepted behaviors must a property holder specifically post are allowed?
What a clown Newsom is
There must be signage specifically allowing USPS, UPS, FedEx, drivers to access your property. They must be identified by name and include a photograph.
Also, unless you have a sign specifically allowing it, police cannot enter your property, since they are carrying guns.
Perhaps requiring businesses to post "blacks welcome" signs.
This is one example of why being a libertarian is hard. On the one hand I agree that resistance to unconstitutional over-reaching by uncontrolled Federal power is good. On the other hand protection of our Second Amendment rights by Federal authority is also good. And on my third hand states asserting their Tenth Amendment authority in violation of my Second Amendment rights while Federal and state authorities are busy trying to violate our First Amendment and Fourth Amendment rights leaves me with almost no official allies in the fight for liberty! Maybe a few sheriffs who refuse to follow unconstitutional edicts? And maybe the Three Percenters when they’re not acting too crazy? Now if only there was some loose tea we could dump into the Potomac River …
Since the civil war most rights in the Bill of Rights have been incorporated, meaning that the states are not allowed to violate them. I'm not sure what legal doctrine California is following with these actions but it appears to be "FYTW" with a heaping dose of "if you want your rights so bad try winning a bunch of sequential lawsuits that go all the way to SCOTUS".
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights was itself government overreach, and is in large part responsible for the erosion of individual liberties.
There were some overreaches in the late 20th century but the goal Sen. Howard read was to impose the first eight amendments on the states that Democrats led into war.
Being a libertarian is hard because you are not rich enough to be a Republican.
Why does the picture of the Constitution behind Newsom list the Amendments as Articles?
That's some serious attention to detail. Good catch.
The original of that image traces back to this document from the Library of Congress. It is an image of the Bill of Rights with the full header shown below but the "Bill of Rights" line got truncated and the "in force as of" line is obscured by Newsom's head.
A Bill of Rights
as provided in the Ten Original Amendments to
The Constitution of the United States
in force December 15, 1791.
Remember when Liberal said they were not coming for our guns? They are liars as always!
Let’s go, Brandon!
the gun-grabbers simply cannot explain why the criminals and lunatics will obey these laws.
They break the laws and the cops punish them.
Is that too hard to understand>?
I am likely responding to Poe himself, but whatever.
The justice system punishes people for harming other people. Using a gun to shoot someone harms that person and is usually punishable. Owning a gun doesn't harm anyone and shouldn't be punished.
I would add this.
The same side that is enacting and enforcing rthese laws are the same side that
- pushes for decarceration
- pushes foer defunding the police
- accuses the police of habitually hunting down and gunning down unarmed Black men.
- accuses the crimijnal justice system of being systemically racist
It is pretty fucking obvious that those who enact and enforce these laws have no problem with crimes against people!
the gun-grabbers simply cannot explain why the criminals and lunatics will obey these laws.
These laws aren’t to protect people or prevent crime.
These laws are to punish lawful gun owners, a group of people who typically don’t support Newsom or the asshole political party he belongs too.
The same reason criminals obey *the other* laws, dipshit.
Laws do not end crimes, but when enforced they deter them.
How do you enforce a law against someone whose gun is concealed? Stop and frisk?
Newsom is doing this the hard way. He should simply demand that citizens who want a conceal carry permit pass the military "expert" level shooting test at regulation rifle distance and do it with a concealable pistol.
In other words make it impossible to get one.
Still infringes. Rights are not contingent on jumping through whatever hoops that scumbag can think up.
-jcr
Cruikshank v United States 1878:
"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States."
Since that time several rights were "incorporated" under the "Due Process of Law" clause of the 14th Amendment. This means that the feds can choose which rights it wants to protect. Virtually every federally enforceable right hinges on the "Due Process of Law" clause. Dobbs was a serious threat to these protections since the court exercised its power to pick and choose rights based on a very subjective standard (Washington v Glucksberg). The fact that certain rights are named in the Bill of Rights (free speech, freedom of religion, keep and bear arms) is irrelevant under Cruikshank.
The Democrats used Cruikshank for 80 years to keep black people from voting, owning firearms and speaking freely. Don't think that they won't do it again with a new Supreme Court.
Uhm, no. Unless, when you say “Feds”, you are talking about the US Supreme Court. When one of the rights in the Bill of Rights is fully incorporated under the 14th Amdt, it means that it is also fully applicable against the states. The Supreme Court in McDonald recognized that the 2nd Amdt was fully incorporated in regards to the states. And at that point, there was no notable difference remaining between what the Feds could do and what the states could do, in regards to gun control. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by any level of government (except maybe Indian nations and territories).
Cruikshank Has effectively been overridden by the Supreme Court over the past almost 150 years. It wasn’t really McDonald that did it, but rather the gradual incorporation of the other Bill of Rights over the past century. And it can be excused because it was decided so soon after the 14th Amdt was enacted. Due Process could have been limited to the 5th Amdt. But it wasn’t. And now, with McDonald recognizing that the 2nd Amdt is fully incorporated, rejecting the 2nd Amdt for the states would almost necessarily result in the other 6 of the first 8 Amdts also becoming inapplicable to the states. That would mean that states couldn’t be prevented from infringing Free Speech, Freedom of Religion, Excess Fines, Takings Without Just Compensation, etc. Not going to happen.
It is rare that the Supreme Court to actually reverse itself, as it did with throwing out Roe v Wade this last year. But even many liberal Con law profs admitted that it was built on thin air (as was the case with my very liberal Con Law prof in LS), and even then, it survived for most of our lifetimes. Instead, what is typically done is to “distinguish” a previous decision into oblivion. Cruikshank Has essentially met that fate. Read McDonald and Bruen to see how little it is honored.
I'm starting to think we need a Purge every year.
Just clean up your double wide, and take a shower.
Then use mouth wash.
Playing Devil’s advocate: how can you strike down Roe v. Wade, basically leaving it to states to decide if abortion is legal, and have different view on the second amendment? Like carrying a gun for protection? Don’t live in California? Isn’t it hypocritical to allow states to decide one issue and not another?
The 2nd Amendment is explicit, it is written. There is nothing in the Constitution about abortion at all. It was made up out of whole cloth about "privacy" in Roe v. Wade. The Dobbs decision was right. It's not in the Constitution, so following the 10th Amendment it is a state matter. So, no, it isn't hypocritical.
Tell that to the SCOTUS who is upholding decisions restricting abortions or birth control, but outside the state where it is the law.
What states have passed laws restricting birth control?
The states kinda tried, in the Privacy cases that the ACLU pushed up to Roe v Wade, in order to get their ban on abortion laws.
The states already decided in 1791 when they ratified the Bill of Rights. Furthermore, they thought it was sufficiently important that they decided it in a way that intentionally made it hard to change their minds. No such history applies to Roe v Wade.
Playing Devil’s advocate: how can you strike down Roe v. Wade, basically leaving it to states to decide if abortion is legal, and have different view on the second amendment?
The Second Amendment is a ratified constitutional amendment. There is no amendment related to abortion at all.
Originally, states could pass whatever gun legislation they wanted to. But progressive jurists started the incorporation nonsense a century ago, and the 2A got incorporated, meaning it now applies to the states and local governments as well. Hoisted by their own petard.
However, since there is no amendment that pertains to abortion, it couldn't be incorporated either.
Abortion is the subject where the sides shift 100%.
The Left: The 2nd Amendment is about military (regulated militia) only because that's what it actually says; kinda.
.... enter the 'abortion' switch ...
The Right: The 4th and 13th Amendments is about everything BUT abortion because the word 'abortion' doesn't exist there so how could a right to be secure in ones persons be about 'abortion'?
You are correct. Both sides are playing BS manipulation games with the US Constitution just like activist judges do.
The Second Amendment does not restrict gun ownership to members of militias. Furthermore, just because we don't have a militia right now doesn't mean we wouldn't constitute one if needed. And gun ownership was widely practiced and permitted by law.
The 4th and 14th Amendments simply don't apply to abortion. All the government is doing is restricting the availability of a medical procedure, the same way it restricts thousands of other medical procedures. Furthermore, abortion has historically always been strongly restricted in the US.
So your argument that there is a "switch" is b.s. Republicans simply take the traditional and obvious legal view on both Second Amendment rights and abortion.
You know what else is common government tradition? Gun control.
And yes; if you want to pretend person-hood is obtained Pre-Viable then the 13th (not the 14th) entirely applies. Since when was Government banning medical procedures a concept of Individual Liberty and/or Justice? It's an act of tyranny. Do you really think that ensures "The people's right to be secure in their Persons?" (4th)?
You know what else is common government tradition? Gun control.
Yes, limited and at the state level. But those gun control measures are now unconstitutional because we passed the 14th Amendment and progressive supreme court justices developed the doctrine of incorporation.
I'd be happy to unwind incorporation and let California and New York put their citizens in chains. But as long as we have incorporation, progressives will have to comply with it.
Since when was Government banning medical procedures a concept of Individual Liberty and/or Justice? It’s an act of tyranny.
Well, we can have that discussion after we abolish the FDA, federal product safety regulations, and medical licensing. Until then, suck it up and be happy that your state can pass abortion-related legislation.
Where any State Congress decides to make a law that the Supreme Court has already given guidance that would violate the Constitution, EVERY CITIZEN is legally able to file charges against the LAWMAKERS and the GOVERNOR as individuals, not agents of government using the Rodney King Act, which makes it unlawful to violate Constitutional Rights under Color of law and REMOVES all immunity for the action. This would mean that the SUITS against those persons must be defended by those persons and carry CRIMINAL charges as well. NO government agency can pay the attorney expense and no State's attorney can be used to defend once the suit is given clearance to proceed.
That would be great if it could work in practice.
At first glance the list seemed extreme, but on second thought, a lot of it makes sense.
One should have explicit permission to enter a privately owned establishment armed.
In libraries, museums, hospitals, etc., the open carry of weapons would render the purpose of the space essentially unworkable for staff or much of the population due to reasonable anxiety.
In general, if you’re so afraid of a place that you need a gun to go there, go somewhere else. Or move.
Sorry, no, none of it makes sense. Why, for example, should I need explicit permission to enter a privately-owned-but-generally-open-for-business establishment while doing something that is explicitly legal? In every other context, the burden is on the property owner to define the exclusions (such as "no shirt, no service"). Nowhere is the obligation to say "shirts invited".
Furthermore, the law doesn't merely allow the owner to exclude gun carriers - property owners already have that right. This law requires property owners to speak about their choices. It requires this despite the obvious fact that most property owners would rather not speak on a controversial political topic. They are being robbed of their right to remain quiet.
To your other examples, the "anxiety" you discuss is objectively not reasonable. People who carry openly are not the people you should be afraid of. But to the extent that you are so afraid of a place that you won't go there because someone with a gun might be there, maybe you should be the one to go somewhere else. Or move. There are lots of countries that have no 2A protections. If guns frighten you so badly, go try one of them.
Because it is privately owned, dickhead. Or do you demand rights in a privately owned bakery?
Read Shelley v. Kraemer (1948). Racially restrictive CC&Rs were lawful, but the government could not enforce them.
The problem with your theory is that non governmental property owns have the right to ban carrying guns into their premises. That hasn’t changed, and involves license and trespass law. What CA did was to take the choice away from the private property owners, and presume that they didn’t want those carrying guns on the premises, regardless of their true feelings. Most property owners are fairly ambivalent about it - as evidenced by how few businesses in Free States actually post notices that guns are forbidden on their premises. In the states I live in (MT, AZ) it is so rare, that the signs stick out, and I remember them (and avoid them in the future, if I can).
Notice that the CA law involves government action. Violating it could end up with you in prison, even if the property owner were ambivalent about you being armed on their premises. In most of the rest of the country, they can post their property as gun free, and then if they discover someone armed on their premises have them removed as trespassers. There are plenty of things that citizens can do privately, that governments cannot do, under our Bill of Rights.
"How can I tell people I know nothing about the law in question without explicitly saying it?"
This law has nothing to do with the open carrying of firearms.
The gun is concealed. Open carry is not allowed in Cal. How does this scare anyone?
If you are so afraid that people might have guns, move out of California. Idaho has essentially no gun laws. I almost never feel a need to carry a gun.
Yet ID is in the top 3 for gun ownership. Much of the state is armed, or at least has a gun in their house or vehicle.
A year or two ago, we were on the pass between ID and MT, and got stuck in our rental car. It had 4 wheel drive, but I got high centered on a late season snow drift. We finally got pulled out by a couple of young men from nearby ID who were both wearing handguns in cross draw holsters. It got me thinking. A surprising number of the guys I know in MT conceal carry on a regular basis. And yes, there is some open carry - at least partially historical because until we got a Republican governor recently, you needed a concealed carry permit to carry concealed within city limits, so some who carried openly did it because they couldn’t legally carry concealed. But more often than not, what they carry are pocket pistols (like my .380 LCR II).
It probably very much probably depends on where you live. In next door MT, I carry a handgun for the wildlife - typically a 10 mm G20 when I am walking our dog. But we have black bear in the neighborhood on a regular basis, plus an occasional mountain lion. But we also have brown bear on the north ridge, and wolves on the south ridge. Luckily they mostly stay on their respective ridges, and rarely visit the valley where most of the people live. We also have a house in PHX, and there I carry a 9 mm G19, or now G43X, for the coyotes that I occasionally encounter, again, when walking the dog. The coyotes can be fairly aggressive, and consider small dogs like ours (as well as cats) to be delicacies.
You're an idiot.
The reason to carry is because shit happens, and when it does, it's better to be prepared than unprepared. Mass shootings require large numbers of unarmed victims. If just a few people are carrying, the odds for the attacker change quite drastically.
-jcr
One should have explicit permission to enter a privately owned establishment armed.
Reason? None.
In libraries, museums, hospitals, etc., the open carry of weapons would render the purpose of the space essentially unworkable for staff or much of the population due to reasonable anxiety.
There is nothing "reasonable" about being afraid of a gun; that is a fear created by anti-gun activists.
This guy is such a greasy little autocrat. I long for the days when I couldn't imagine a worse governor than Moonbeam.
-jcr
Although I dislike both Trump and Biden and will not vote for either of them. Gavin Newsom is much, much, much worse that either of the two old geezers.
Trump is an arrogant narcissist.
Biden is a corrupt warmongering imbecile.
Newsom is the very embodiment of unadulterated evil.
I am pretty sure the USA constitution would have a section invalidating / forbidding a state(s) or territories making & administration of laws that Conflicts with the USA.Constitution or federal laws/regulations/ rules to the extent of which such conflict exists. Surely the smartest constitutional framers on earth thought of this!
•And you Don’t get to pick and choose which, constitutional sections or Laws you will obey !!
•and if citizens can’t carry then Police, Sheiiffs, Prison Officers, Border Guards, and FBI and Military Officers and Politicians & other VIP’s Bodyguards can’t carry them either (any weapon).
Dear Leader Newsom does not think the Constitution or the Supreme Court should be allowed to contain his godness. Dear Leader Newsom is omnipotent. The Constitution and the Supreme Court must be eradicated because Dear Leader Newsom is infallible.