Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

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.comSkypixel/Dreamstime.comTwo new federal court decisions highlight a harsh new reality: California has effectively repealed the Second Amendment inside its borders.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

Photo Credit: Skypixel/Dreamstime.com

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.

  • damikesc||

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

  • susancol||

    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.

  • Mark22||

    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?

  • macsimcon||

    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?

  • epsilon given||

    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!

  • Get To Da Chippah||

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

  • markm23||

    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?

  • pro bonobo||

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

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    And some of us just stay here.

  • ace_m82||

    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.

  • retiredfire||

    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.

  • ace_m82||

    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?

  • ace_m82||

    Governments murder.

    www.reason.com/archives/2014/0.....-and-proud

    262 million UNARMED people in 100 years. And Hihn wants to disarm you. I wonder why?

  • ace_m82||

    "I'm being punished for proving ace-m82 is full of shit"

    You're being "punished" by your stubbornness that won't let you quit long after you lost.

    "this time on the 14th Amendment"

    And who brought that up? Oh, that was me. You've brought nothing to this discussion.

    "He's also full of shit that the Bill of Rights applies only to states"

    Feds. Originally, it only applied to the Feds. Only after the 14th was passed was ANY part of it applied to the states. But Mr. Hihn, the devout worshiper of the Supreme Court, ought to know that, right?

    "Christian Taliban"

    I only use force in two cases:

    1, To stop initiations of force (self-defense).

    2. To extract justice from those who already initiated force.

    If you weren't talking about me there, then the whole thing was a red herring.

    Abusus non tollit usum.

    Cicero knew your argument was wrong. Why don't you?

    262 million UNARMED people dead, Hihn. What you worship, the government, has killed that many in 100 years.

    Now, answer why you want us disarmed so much Hihn? Is it due to the same reason you defend the Nazis?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano gurgling more Hihnsano stupidity.

  • ace_m82||

    No, I brought it up, that one could make that argument.

    Thanks for linking to the article about the 262 million UNARMED people killed by governments in the last 100 years though.

  • ace_m82||

    "COULD make it?"

    Yes, could. The Court didn't incorporate the 14th as meaning the entirety of the bill of rights... even now, actually. It only did the 2nd in McDonald.

    "THIS is what you said, you lying sack of shit."

    I know. I wrote it!

    "It is NOT optional. THE STATES CANNOT DO THAT"

    They do all the time. So yes, they can.

    "You're also FULL OF SHIT on 'the original reading and writers.'"

    All right, give me ONE original writer of the Constitution that applied the Bill of Rights to the States. I'll wait...

    CDC numbers mean there's over 2 million defensive gun uses in the US per year:

    www.reason.com/blog/2018/04/20.....t-plenty-o

    262 million UNARMED people killed by governments in 100 years:

    www.reason.com/archives/2014/0.....-and-proud

    Now, why would Hihn want to disarm us? Maybe it's because he defends the Nazis and their treatment of the Jews!

    God Bless you, Hihn, regardless of your defense of Nazis, and attempted disarming/murdering schemes!

  • ace_m82||

    YOU LYING PIECE OF SHIT.
    These are just the ten LARGEST rulings based on the 14th ... STARTING IN 1873 ... FIVE YEARS AFTER IT WAS RATIFIED

    It only did the 2nd in McDonald. I specifically said I was talking about the 2nd.

    www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inco....._of_Rights

    Important quote: "Even years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank (1876) still held that the First and Second Amendment did not apply to state governments."

    So, yeah, keep making the argument, Hihn. The Court says you're wrong.

    YOU ALSO FUCKED UP THE NINTH AMENDMENT.

    Didn't mention it. Also, doesn't even show up in the Wikipedia entry which lists the amendments and their incorporation to the states. So, show me how this has been incorporated, Hihn.

    Guntards be BIGGER FUCKING LIARS

    Hihn, calling someone a "tard" and "liar". How cute.

    Considering how you worship the Supreme Court so much, Hihn, you seem to be ignorant of what it's actually said...

  • ace_m82||

    "How DARE toy take the Name of the Lord Thy God in Vain"

    Yes, Hihn, lie, try to disarm everyone so you can kill them, defend Nazis, THEN try to speak for God. All of that seems rational and sane!

    "lied about me defendig nazis."

    Hihn, You're still doing it!

    "lied about Jews FREELY leaving nazi Germany"

    I asked if they were free to leave in the 1940s. You said they were. You prove yourself wrong.

    "lied about them being held in Auschwitz"

    Oh, so they WEREN'T held in Auschwitz?

    "***YOU

    ***ARE

    *** iN

    ***DESPERATE

    ***NEED

    *** OF

    ***PSYCHIATRIC

    ***HELP"

    The lack of self awareness is astounding!

    Regardless of your insanity, God Bless you, Hihn!

  • Finrod||

    Fuck off, slaver.

  • macsimcon||

    I don't know where you went to law school, but ace_m82 is correct: the Bill of Rights protects you from the FEDERAL government, it says nothing about the states.

    And none of the amendments are absolute. In particular, there are plenty of exceptions to the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth amendments.

  • Lungshot||

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

  • shortviking||

    Exactly.

  • epsilon given||

    Are you accusing the general citizenry of being criminals?

    And what are we supposed to do when the police *are* criminals? Or are you going to insist that police are as clean and honest as the wind-driven snow, which is why they, and only they (and, of course, our always-virtuous soldiers) should be allowed to have arms?

  • Eidde||

    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.

  • Kivlor||

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

  • UVaGrad||

    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.

  • Just Say'n||

    Now do DOMA

  • Eidde||

    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.

  • macsimcon||

    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.

  • epsilon given||

    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.

  • Eidde||

    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.

  • Just Say'n||

    "The full faith and credit clause doesn't apply to guns just gay marriage"

    Libertarian-y af

  • Naaman Brown||

    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

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Nuke the I-5 corridor today.

  • Eric L||

    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.)

  • CE||

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

  • Eric L||

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

  • Earth Skeptic||

    You could just target any area with urban population density.

  • macsimcon||

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

  • Rich||

    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*!

  • DAV||

    Hmmm ... So are abortions.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    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.

  • Longtobefree||

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

  • Tionico||

    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.

  • retiredfire||

    Anyone with a tenth of a brain, and an ounce of humanity, knows that the right to life supersedes the right to liberty.
    What promotes liberty being subjective, while life is easily proven
    To make them "precisely equal" gives the person claiming to kill to preserve their liberty, carte blanche.
    Maybe someone can use that in time of war, but under general principles...?

  • Dookert||

    Eh, have to sort of agree with retiredfire Michael. Your "right to liberty" argument can thus apply 8 months, three weeks and 6 days into a pregnancy. Is it ok to murder that baby? Like rf said, liberty is subjective and in your example to the man three states away, the answer is yes. Yes the state can deny your liberty(by apprehending you for questioning and criminal charges) if you are the one who directly jeopardized his life by say, locking him in an airtight container on purpose and being the only one who knows where the key is. You are attempting to murder him and thus you are creating a balancing act in where you are denying a core component to enjoying liberty (not being dead) against your right (liberty) to put him in a scenario which you yourself created.

  • macsimcon||

    Putting aside any religious or spiritual justifications:

    When a fetus can survive without medical assistance outside the mother's body, THEN it is a baby, and entitled to Constitutional protection, and not a second before.

    Prior to that moment, the fetus depends on the mother's biological systems to keep it alive, it is no different than a parasite. If she wants to terminate that fetus, she should have the right to do so. Her LIBERTY trounces the fetus' (NOT baby's) right to life.

    And yes, it is solely HER decision, because that fetus depends on her body for survival, not the father's.

  • 10mm||

    "So how does the woman lose HER rights by becoming pregnant?"

    She doesn't lose any rights.

    Her right to liberty stops at the child's right to life.

  • 10mm||

    I went to architectural school, so I'm used to people trying to appear brilliant by over-complicating their answers.

    You must long to be a politician, the way you didn't answer my point. Or you wish to play in an academic world of gibberish to avoid how reality actually plays out.

    1. There is (what I believe) to be a independent human life within a pregnant mother.
    2. We have formed a government (yes, that uses threat of sanctioned force) to prevent murder within our society.
    3. I therefore believe that said abortion is a murder.
    4. Therefore our societal government should step in to prevent the mother from murdering the child.

    We can have a valid argument whether it is an independent life. But if you believe that Jefferson advocated anarchy, well you are obviously way too many doses over your limit of Adderall today and I'm sorry I wasted my breath.

    By the way, Jefferson used the term Unalienable to infer Absolute, meaning derived from God or a higher power, or more simply, not derived from government. That is all. If you think that is the sum total of his writing, and therefore government can never limit your liberty because of the term unalienable, this is where you have dragged me down the academic logic hole and I'm sorry I have played along.

  • 10mm||

    I'm not entirely sure why I keep playing with an obvious Troll, but here goes for fun.

    "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

    Are they authoritarians too?

    And more importantly, which is the ruling document of the US, the Constitution or Declaration?

  • 10mm||

    By the way, the little game you like to play with "unalienable" and "absolute" skirts the issue that you are purposely reinterpreting Jefferson's statement and intent to troll people here so you can call them authoritarians.

    Also, Jefferson was a highly educated, moderate Federalist. Why would he purposely start the Declaration with a single statement that nullified any government power thereafter?

    Let's make this clear: HE SAID THE RIGHTS ARE DERIVED FROM GOD, NOT GOVERNMENT. HE DID NOT SAY THE RIGHTS WERE ABSOLUTE.

    please show me otherwise, by his actions or writings...

    I know, I know, copy paste my words and repeat what you typed above instead of actually providing evidence for your troll nonsense.

  • 10mm||

    Watching you flail and keep writing the word Unlienable a thousand times is pure comedy.

    Still didn't answer my question.

    You keep saying rights are absolute.

    Dipshit, Jefferson never said rights were absolute.
    You can play word games all you want in your little unibomber cave, but it's getting old.

    Keep typing

    All work and no play makes Hinh Unalienable
    All work and no play makes Hinh Unalienable
    All work and no play makes Hinh Unalienable
    All work and no play makes Hinh Unalienable
    All work and no play makes Hinh Unalienable
    All work and no play makes Hinh Unalienable

  • 10mm||

    My reenactment for everyone:


    You: The MEANING of "unalienable" rights is "absolute" rights. All "fundamental" rights are absolute .. may not be denied or taken away .. EVER ... for ANY reason. Got it?

    Me (and the rest of reality): Umm, no, Jefferson used the world Unalienable meaning rights come from God, not government.

    You: Yes, and God is Absolute, therefore, all rights are absolute and "may not be denied or taken away .. EVER ... for ANY reason"

    Me (and the rest of reality): Umm, no. Jefferson, nor God nor anyone else ever stated that all fundamental rights are absolute. Citation please?

    You: (all caps on now): YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT UNALIENABLE MEANS, YOU'RE JUST A BULLY, IGNORANT, AGGRESSOR. CHILDISH, AUTHORITARIAN, ARROGANT RETARD, NOW I'M GOING TO JAM IT UP YOUR ASS
    (these are all words actually used just above in some manner for reference)
    [snort and retreats to unibomber cave in Idaho]

    By the way Hihn, my sincere and deep apologies for misspelling your name above while mocking you publicly, it was so rude of me.

    I have real work to do, so I'll come back later to see the next line of unHihnged crazy response. Does Reason ever shut these down? I am curious how long we can go with the "I know you are but what am I" type trolling.

  • macsimcon||

    Neither the right to life nor the right to liberty are absolute, not in this country anyway.

    Do I have the right to refuse to pay taxes in the United States, because I don't agree with the way the government restricts what pistol I can by, and where?

    If I'm starving, do I have the right to beat someone nearly to death so I can take his or her food?

    Something isn't true just because you THINK something is true, or you FEEL something is true. It is only true when it's a fact, not a feeling, such as "lie is an absolute right" or "liberty is an absolute right."

  • Tankboy||

    So sorry to see that you failed Sarcasm Awareness 101

  • Just Say'n||

    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

  • retiredfire||

    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.

  • Finrod||

    Fuck off, slaver.

  • macsimcon||

    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.

  • epsilon given||

    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.

  • Ken Hagler||

    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."

  • Kivlor||

    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?

  • Mark22||

    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.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

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

  • Just Say'n||

    You're the asshole defending stripping away gun rights.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    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).

  • BYODB||

    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?

  • Unemployed Armenian Tranny||

    I "reasonably" feel that "shall not be infringed" means what it says.

  • retiredfire||

    Linking to your own shit just makes you a shit eater.
    What some communist judge(s) decide(s) - and the vast majority of them are communists - doesn't alter what the Amendment was written to protect.
    And your continued use of things like "goober" or your parenthetical "snorts" just make you look even more child-like...and you know how much attention people pay to the opinions of children, or those who act like them.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano pretends he's read Scalia.
    (chuckle)

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano hates this part:

    "Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."

    That's why he shrieks like a bitch when he can't get in the last word.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano the prissy little bitch doesn't like his lies being called lies.

  • Bruce D||

    weapons used by the militia

    Like M-16s, military rifles.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

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

  • Vin_Decks!!!||

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

  • Finrod||

    Fuck off, lying slaver.

  • Gozer the Gozarian||

    Because that's exactly what's happening.

  • Mark22||

    [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.

  • retiredfire||

    Wrong, again.
    In America, the left are the fascists, as they have always been.
    The NAZIs were National Socialists. That's the left.

  • Mark22||

    And you worship all three of those totalitarian ideologies, Michael Hihn.

  • macsimcon||

    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.

  • WoodChipperBob||

    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.

  • Johnimo||

    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!

  • Gary T||

    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.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks he knows about conflicting rights.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    As Rand would say - check your premises. There cannot be a conflict between 2 absolute rights.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Chickenshit FAIL.

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano's nickname in high school.

  • Mock-star||

    Which two rights being in conflict do you have in mind?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    And that answer is, Dumbfuck Hihnsano doesn't have a clue.

  • Mock-star||

    Ok, regarding the 2A, which two rights do you feel are in conflict?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano still can't figure it out.

  • Tionico||

    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.

  • macsimcon||

    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.

  • epsilon given||

    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.

  • Naaman Brown||

    [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]

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano loves meaningless slogans when they're convenient.

  • macsimcon||

    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?

  • epsilon given||

    Yes, it is just a coïncidence: Mass shootings are *very* rare -- so rare, in fact, that statistical analysis of mass shootings is *meaningless*.

    Meanwhile, is it a coïncidence 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".

  • gormadoc||

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

  • UVaGrad||

    "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.

  • Just Say'n||

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

  • Mark22||

    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?

  • DJK||

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

  • DJK||

    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).

  • target||

    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

  • Longtobefree||

    Absolutely, because in the home is the only place a militia is ever used - - - - - - - -

  • Tionico||

    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

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano linking to his own stupidity again.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks Supreme Court rulings justify gun bans.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano desperately wants those gun bans!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano hates the Constitution, accuses others of hating the Constitution.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    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.

  • DJK||

    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.

  • Mark22||

    Yes, I understand the "rational basis" test. It's bullshit.

  • Rockabilly||

    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.

  • Hank Phillips||

    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.

  • Just Say'n||

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

  • Johnimo||

    You make a valid point, Mr. Just Say'n.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    You're both dumber than a pile of cow shit.

    And yet both are still smarter than Dumbfuck Hihnsano. The PROOF is in the Depends.

  • macsimcon||

    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.

  • ||

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

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

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

  • DJK||

    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.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    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.

  • TuIpa||

    Or maybe you were just insufferable.

  • Hank Ferrous||

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

  • Naaman Brown||

    Zenith or Nadir?

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

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    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.)

  • Paradigm||

    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.

  • Old Coasty||

    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.

  • AZ Gunowner||

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

    Speculate on trying to do that nationwide.

  • ||

    Isn't that what Hillary said last election?

  • DJK||

    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.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    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.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    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.

  • macsimcon||

    Careful, that straw man is flammable!

  • Naaman Brown||

    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.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano desperately wants that gun ban!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano spewing his stupidity again about conflicting rights, when he doesn't even know how they conflict.

  • CE||

    Yeah, it's kooky to loudly defend an absolute human right, huh?

  • Ship of Theseus||

    Hihn is Back.... and this time, with PROOF (on that page).

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Proof is for sure if all caps.

  • DJK||

    Especially if it's a cite to a comment Hihn made on another article.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks his stupidity is knowledge.

    (sneer)

  • Mock-star||

    "Especially if it's a cite to a comment Hihn made on another article."

    I'd actually take him a little more seriously if he cited something from ANOTHER article. All he ever does is link to his own frontier gibberish upthread on the same article.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    More frontier gibberish from Dumbfuck Hihnsano.

  • DAV||

    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.

  • Morbo||

    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.

  • Ride 'Em||

    God? Or do we need a seance?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano links to his own stupidity.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Neither of which you've bothered to read.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano confirms he never read what he claimed.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano pretends he's read Scalia again.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano links to a ruling he never bothered to read.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano screeches like a bitch when people read for themselves and point out he's full of shit.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano links to his own stupidity, thinks no one will notice he pimps gun bans.

  • macsimcon||

    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.

  • epsilon given||

    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!

  • Hank Phillips||

    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.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

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

  • DAV||

    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.

  • Ecoli||

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

  • Michael Ejercito||

    So why did not blacks leave?

  • Michael Ejercito||

    So why did not blacks leave?

  • macsimcon||

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

  • Iheartskeet||

    Hmmm. I see a lot of "...Obama appointee..." sprinkled in there.

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

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    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.

  • Iheartskeet||

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

  • epsilon given||

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

  • macsimcon||

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

  • Will Nonya||

    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.

  • macsimcon||

    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.

  • epsilon given||

    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.

  • TGoodchild||

    Big Mike: I believe you need to re-enter law school.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano links to his own stupidity, pretends he actually read Scalia's ruling.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano is assblasted that his stupidity is so obvious.

  • Vin_Decks!!!||

    *wiping Hihn's spittle off my screen*......

    Maybe it's time to try Sanka, Mike....

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    In Heller, Scalia also reaffirmed the 1939 US v Miller ruling, that 2A protects ONLY those weapons in common use at the time, brought from home for militia duty -- single-shot pistols and rifles.

    You might want to actually take a look at Scalia's ruling. Let me know when you get to page 8.

    Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivo­lous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. .... the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the
    founding.

  • Longtobefree||

    "There can be no rational response to an irrational demand"

    Don't try to use facts with Mikey; it's like teaching a pig to whistle, it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

  • Texasmotiv||

    Please keep walking away.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Hihn has had that part of Scalia's opinion cited time and again in response to his idiocy, but he continues to ignore it while still citing the ruling from which it came.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    Which Hihn? There's so many versions of him nowadays, it's as if a tear in spacetime has allowed them to wander in from other dimensions.

  • Morbo||

    The dumbest one.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Actually, it's proof you have no idea what words mean.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    I'd say the only person you're humiliating is yourself, but that would require you to have the self-awareness of the average fern.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano links to his own stupidity again.

  • Goomba||

    It is hilarious that he says others have infantile verbal assaults when that is most all that he does. He loses his arguments from the start due to the ad hominem attacks.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    This is where us "psychos" note that the "modern development" that limited the fit between militia arms and commonly owned arms was the Court's own refusal to uphold the 2nd amendment for 68 years,, while gun control laws accumulated.

    It's as though the Court had ruled that segregated drinking fountains and schools were ok under the 14th amendment because the Court itself had permitted them to become common.

    Neither the minority nor the majority in the Heller case were trying to actually uphold the 2nd amendment. They just disagreed about the degree to which it should be rendered moot.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    "Scalia used a rather lengthy argument, showing that 2A could ONLY mean weapons in common use at ratification., brought from home for militia duty."

    No, you added the "at ratification". Scalia just said "in common use at the time". They could scarcely have brought guns in common use today, without the use of a time machine.

    My point is that the sort of guns in common use at that time were identical to military arms. And that the only reason guns in common use today are no longer identical to military arms is as a consequence of laws that accumulated while the Supreme court was refusing to take 2nd amendment cases.

    He deliberately grandfathered in the results of unconstitutional laws. And I'm quite certain he knew what he was doing.

    "You KNOW Brett has gone TOTALLY off the rails when he whines that SCALIA is not an originalist."

    I take it you're unaware that Scalia described himself as a "faint hearted originalist"? That he denied being consistent? I suggest you read his "A Matter of Interpretation", it's not a long book, and the print is large, you might be up to the task.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    REALLY stupid!

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano gives us warning of his limited mental capacity ahead of time.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano hates this part of Scalia's ruling:

    3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment .

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks only single-shot muskets are protected by the Second Amendment.

  • retiredfire||

    Under that kind of reasoning, only a hand-operated printing press is protected by the First.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks no one will notice that he's been pimping a gun ban for weeks.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano pimps a gun ban, lies about pimping for gun bans.

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano's IQ = Zero.

  • CE||

    The 2nd Amendment doesn't apply only to flintlocks, duh. It applies to arms of military usefulness.

  • DJK||

    Wow. Another self-cite. Brilliant legal analysis.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano whines like a bitch, accuses others of whining.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    SHAME ON YOU!
    I never said it did.

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks it only applies to hunting rifles.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano pimping his gun ban again.

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano be...a LIAR.

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano's IQ = Zero

  • DJK||

    As has been pointed out numerous times, you are intentionally reading Heller in the exact opposite manner it was written. No one will ever take seriously your arguments that interpret the words to mean their exact opposite.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano...babbles...lies...and shits his pants.

  • ace_m82||

    1. You have only one right, the right to do everything other than initiate force. Ergo, "rights" cannot come into conflict, definitionally.

    2. This is what Hihn means by "rights":

    www.reason.com/blog/2018/01/17.....nt_7100385

    "Don't like it? EMIGRATE."

    "See .. government DEFENDS rights."

    www.reason.com/blog/2018/02/21.....nt_7150853

    As the Nazis were elected in 1933, they didn't violate rights. Also, the Jews were free to leave!

    Me: Were the Jews in Germany in the 1940s free to leave?
    Hihn: ANOTHER MASSIVE FUCKUP!!! Of course they could,,.,.and many did. YOU THINK HITLER WANTED THEM TO STAY!!

    So, tell us again, Hihn, how those Jews in Auschwitz were "free to leave"? Those walls with the barbed wire and the guards with the machine guns, those were to prevent others from attacking those Jews, huh?

    Hihn legitimately thinks "rights" are subject to the will of the majority (or plurality). And, if this is anything like all the other times I've brought it up, Hihn will now come forward to defend the Nazis and their "rights" and "freedom"...

  • ace_m82||

    I think Hihn may have gotten self-aware (for at least a short period of time)! He keeps lurking here but refusing to answer me.

    So, I guess all we can conclude is that he [A] defends Nazis as being within their "rights" and [B] is ashamed of it.

  • ace_m82||

    Lie
    Lie
    Lie

    No surprise!

    But, regardless of your consistent love for initiations of force:

    God bless you, Hihn!

  • ace_m82||

    Yes, indeed, you lie over and over.

    I didn't take my definition from anyone. I made it up based on my understanding and experience. Notice how if fits completely with what mises.org said!

    "How strange," Hihn must think, "there's logical consistency here!"

    Regardless of you complete and utter attack upon logic and morality:

    God Bless you, Hihn!

  • ace_m82||

    "Now he admits inventing his crazy definition out of thin air."

    No, I made it up after careful study. It mirrors reality. It compliments other correct definitions quite well.

    You're welcome.

  • ace_m82||

    I find it quite fascinating that you think that's a response!

    Give it up, Hihn! I won't let your "alternative facts" win!

    Veritas Liberabit Vos.

    God Bless you, Hihn!

  • ace_m82||

    I note that the Mises Institute doesn't say there is more than one right, or that rights can come into conflict, or that initiations of force are legitimate. So, my definition and theirs can both be right, just a different way of saying the same thing. And both are completely against your ethical stance, which is that initiations of force are OK as long as there is "consent of the governed", which to you means majority or plurality.

    So, basically, you have a reading comprehension problem. Unlike what you claim, I do not simply take what others say as true, I come to my own conclusions and don't copy mises.org (though they are an amazing resource).

    and 98% of the American people

    The vast majority of people used to think the world was flat. I suppose that would have been "true" back then, according to you, right? And if I didn't like that they voted death for all the "spherical Earthers", I'd have the "right to emigrate", right?

    Retard has changed "rights" as everyone else defines them into "activities" or "actions"

    I didn't change anything. You have the right to do anything (which includes believe or say) other than initiate force. You like initiating force so you cannot accept that.

    So ... what happens when two non-aggressive ACTIONS are in conflict?

    They cannot, by definition. If two people are in conflict, then one initiated force. That one is in the wrong.

    (Notice the silence about the Nazis!)

  • ace_m82||

    "FORCED you to admit that you INVENTED a definition"

    Yes, I invented a definition. It mirrors reality perfectly. You're welcome.

    "you ASSAULT me"

    No, that's what the Nazis did. To the Jews. That you defend.

    "NOBODY other than you has invented a definition out of thin air, then tried to FORCE it on all of humanity.
    Not Hiltler"

    Your buddy? That you defend? Over and over again? Also, I don't force it on anybody. I don't force anything on anybody. I refuse to initiate force (use government). Maybe you should think about trying the same.

    "You've been stalking me for over a year"

    I tell you you're wrong. I tell lots of people they are wrong.

    "HUMILIATED yourself"

    Not very self-aware, now are you?

    "defending NAP"

    And yet, you defend the Nazis. And all of government. Which is all an assault on NAP.

    Here's a question for you Hihny, in what way does MY definition of "right" fail to mirror reality? Answer that one.

    God Bless you, Hihn!

  • BYODB||

    Cool, so you're saying I can have a cannon loaded with grape shot? Nice!

    I do love that you make the classic retard blunder on the 'no right to yell fire in a crowded theatre' which readily illustrates that you have nothing more than a talking point knowledge of the subject.

    No one that's actually read what that justification was used for thinks that it's a good argument, but I can see you're special.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks everyone else is as ignorant of Supreme Court decisions as he is.

  • macsimcon||

    What's telling is your insistence in quoting Scalia, one of the most radical wackos to ever sit on the Court. Over and over again, Scalia's opinions are out-of-step with and some of the most extreme to ever come from the Court.

    Now, does such a statistical deviation suggest he's right...or just crazy?

  • Eidde||

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

  • Eidde||

    "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.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

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

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    This argument would play in certain quarters.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Hihn, get your sarcasm detector recalibrated.

  • Ship of Theseus||

    He's a raving lunatic that almost certainly belongs in an asylum (if we really did that anymore).

  • epsilon given||

    Because nothing says "Go Libertarianism" and "The State Should Have No Power Whatsoever" than insisting that the State should take our guns and be the only ones with the power to kill people, right?

    After all, we can only confer onto government that which we have the right to do, and since we have the right to steal our neighbor's guns because they give us the willies (with their dark skins and funny accents and their funny beliefs in superstitious nonsense and their "alternative lifestyles", who wouldn't be afraid of them?), government can take *everyone's* guns!

    Because *only* authoritarians wanting to force individuals to do their will would believe that the best way to do that, would be to make sure every man, woman and child be armed, and trained in the use of their arms. If your opponents aren't armed, after all, your secret police couldn't *possibly* arrest random uppity citizens during the night, to cause them to disappear without a trace!

  • Texasmotiv||

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

  • Longtobefree||

    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.

  • BYODB||

    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.)

  • Tony||

    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.

  • NYC2AZ||

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

  • Ship of Theseus||

    ^This.

  • NYC2AZ||

    Who said that guns winning the War on Guns has anything to do with 2A case law?

  • NYC2AZ||

    How so?

  • NYC2AZ||

    Still waiting Hihn...

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano pimping his gun ban again.

  • macsimcon||

    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.

  • epsilon given||

    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.

  • DJK||

    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?

  • Tony||

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

  • ace_m82||

    Was that person the guy robbing you? At gunpoint?

  • ace_m82||

    No, I asked him if he was going to qualify the statement. You have the right* to shoot someone in the face if they are robbing you at gunpoint.

    *This is perfectly consistent with the one right to do anything other than initiate force.

  • epsilon given||

    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.

  • Cranedoc||

    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!"

  • Tony||

    Do you idiots never travel to any other country?

  • ace_m82||

  • ace_m82||

    Awwwwww Hihn! You just can't help yourself!

    Why don't you read it and weep, the CDC study on defensive firearm uses:

    www.reason.com/blog/2018/04/20.....t-plenty-o

  • NYC2AZ||

    How so?

  • ace_m82||

    So, I answer the actual issue at hand, and you link to anecdotal evidence that has existed since England has no real gun control either. And you think I have the diversion?

    CDC says so Hihn. Too bad for your disarmament scheme.

  • ace_m82||

    Official source data is anecdotal, because the disparities in violent crime rates have always existed, even when England's gun laws were near identical to the US's, which is to say, near non-existent.

    CDC data on defensive gun uses = over 2 million per year.

    www.http://reason.com/blog/201.....t-plenty-o

    Sorry about your scheme to DISARM us, Hihn. Not like you're planning on killing us or anything...

    www.reason.com/archives/2014/0.....-and-proud

  • ace_m82||

    Messed up that link, my bad.

    www.reason.com/blog/2018/04/20.....t-plenty-o

  • ace_m82||

    THAT'S NOT WHAT ANECDOTAL MEANS!

    Anecdotal: based on or consisting of reports or observations of usually unscientific observers

    The UN studies assume that "intentional homicides" in each country are measured the same.

    www.rboatright.blogspot.com/20.....rates.html

    WHEN CALLED OUT AS A LIAR -- YOU CHANGE TO "VIOLENT CRIMES"

    England's violent crime rate (the ONLY thing that matters) has always been lower than the US's, even when their gun laws were near identical, which is to say near non-existent.

    Now PROVE the disparities CANNOT BE CHANGED

    I can. When gun control is introduced, there is a "shock" upwards in violent crime. When there is freedom introduced, there is a "shock" downward in violent crime.

    I have PROVEN the disparity INCREASED GREATLY in the UK.

    No, you've shown that a (meaningless) rare occurrence is rare. The person stabbed to death is no better off than the one shot to death. 10 people shot all at once is no worse than 10 people stabbed in 10 incidents.

    Try being logically consistent, Hihn. Just once.

  • ace_m82||

  • ace_m82||

    First link shows an upward shock in violent crime due to more gun control.
    Second link shows a downward shock in violent crime due to less gun control.

    But that's OK, Hihn, we both know arguing against those facts is a waste of time.

    Time to quit, Hihn!

  • ace_m82||

    Even the great and powerful Hihn is hit by squirrels, folks.

  • ace_m82||

    www.rboatright.blogspot.com/20.....rates.html

    Anecdotal: based on or consisting of reports or observations of usually unscientific observers

    The UN studies assume that "intentional homicides" in each country are measured the same.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano the prissy little bitch pimps his gun ban again.

  • ace_m82||

    I see you insist on replying exactly the same over two different articles. Neither one of them are on the topic at hand, so I'll just respond the same way I already did:

    "I'll will now teach you HOW to read a SCOTUS ruling."

    Follow me here: I. Don't. Care. The Supreme Court made up their authority to define the Constitution in Marbury v. Madison. Their authority isn't in the Constitution, they just made it up. It's "settled law" that growing wheat on your own land for your own consumption is a Federal issue, and that Interning the Japanese is totally fine if Congress is scared enough. There is no logical consistency here, only power mad slavers.

    Now, I don't know why any SANE person would reply to my charge, that you're obviously only trying to take arms away from us so you can use your beloved government to KILL all the people you don't like (just like your beloved Nazis did, and you continually defend them).

    So, you're either nuts, or you're just trying to obfuscate through red herrings.

    So, Hihn, are you insane or are you evil and trying to kill us? Pick one.

    Regardless of your massive issues:

    God Bless you, Hihn!

    CDC Study on defensive firearm uses:

    www.reason.com/blog/2018/04/20.....t-plenty-o

  • ace_m82||

    I'm not the one who defends Nazis, tries to create more violent crime, and tries to disarm everyone so governments can kill us!

  • macsimcon||

    Come on, these guys can't afford a trip to Pittsburgh, let alone leave 'Murica!

  • epsilon given||

    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!

  • CE||

    Who said they could replace "shall not be infringed" with "wouldn't be substantially burdened", anyway?

  • Hank Phillips||

    Scaley? The girl-bullying mystical bigot who died trying to overturn the good work the LP did in securing the Roe v. Wade decision? THAT nationalsocialist is your paragon defender of individual rights? What have you done with the real Michael Hihn?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Look out, Hank, you're on Dumbfuck Hihnsano's list!

    (guffaw)

  • Mock-star||

    So, which rights do you see as being in conflict, regarding the 2A?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano loves those gun bans!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihsano loves gun bans. The PROOF is on this page!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano hates having his own words used against him.

  • Mock-star||

    So how exactly does merely owning a firearm of any type conflict with the right to life?

    A) it doesnt. Now using a firearm to kill someone unjustly does, and, hey lookee there, literally every single person thinks that using a firearm to kill someone unjustly should be punishable by law. But simply owning a thing harms no one and conflicts with no other right.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano blusters "diversion" because he's too fucking stupid to back up his claims.

  • Mock-star||

    Exactly. When asked what two rights are in conflict,he cant identify them....because there are no conflicting rights in regards to the 2A....so he resorts to unintelligible screeching.

    Or as Hihn would say: I just jammed it up his ass! Bully!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano having a conniption fit because he's a stupid little bitch.

    Cry some more, you stupid little bitch.

  • Mock-star||

    Im pretty sure that Im not the one thats confusing the right with the action. You have yet to show how simply possessing a thing conflicts with anyone else's right. Deal with it.

    "PLUS (pees pants laughing)"

    Hey look, Hihn doesnt lie all the time.

  • macsimcon||

    Listen Mike...you do know that a goober is a peanut, right? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means...

  • Ohio Farmer||

    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.

  • DJK||

    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.

  • Johnimo||

    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."

  • Ship of Theseus||

    You know no one is clicking on your fucking link, right? No one wants a virus.

  • DJK||

    He's linking to a comment on a previous article. Presumably it's one of his own comments. Because self-cites are proof, obviously.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    It is. It's one of the comments where he misunderstands the Heller decision.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihsano loves gun bans. The PROOF is on this page!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano lies about wanting to ban guns.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano full of shit about the Second Amendment, accuses others of being full of shit.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "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.

  • Hank Phillips||

    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...

  • FreeRadical||

    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.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano screeches like a monkey, accuses others of being made a monkey due to Supreme Court rulings he never read.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano admits he doesn't read what he links to.

  • jimolivi@icloud.com||

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

  • Bloving||

    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.

  • macsimcon||

    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.

  • epsilon given||

    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.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    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.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano having his bitchy conniption fit again.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks pimping gun bans is defending liberty, screeches like a bitch when no one buys his bullshit.

  • Cranedoc||

    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!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano lying about the Second Amendment, accuses others of lying.

  • transport||

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

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano can't help linking to his babbling.

  • Heywood Jablome||

    Be afwaid. Be vewy afwaid.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    ... of Dumbfuck Hihnsano having another menopausal meltdown.

  • John B. Egan||

    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

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    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.

  • vek||

    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.

  • retiredfire||

    Are you talking about "mass shootings" and "school shootings" that are the vast minority of the illegal uses of firearms?
    Public policy should not be focused on restricting the rights of law-abiding gun owners, to try to stop such rare occurrences. They will happen anyway, as they have been in countries that have severe restrictions on gun ownership. We don't hear about those, because our media just doesn't publicize them, openly.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsan pimps his gun ban.

  • ace_m82||

    Here are those inconvenient facts once more, Hihn:

    www.naplesgunschool.com/index......acts-myths

    www.gunfacts.info/blog/auditing-australia/

    More gun control, more violent crime. Less gun control, less violent crime.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihsano loves gun bans. The PROOF is on this page!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano pretends he doesn't want a gun ban.
    (sneer)

  • Bloving||

    "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?

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

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

  • vek||

    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.

  • Cloudbuster||

    The "substantial benefit" exemption doesn't appear anywhere in the second amendment that I am aware of.

  • Bloving||

    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. 

  • IMissLiberty||

    Please change the headline to read, "2 New Court Decisions Are Quietly Violating Californians' Second Amendment Rights."

  • IMissLiberty||

    Is it a crime to register ones you don't own?

  • ||

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

  • Mark22||

    Both statists, both scheming to impose their bullshit by force of law. And by bellowing.

    As our resident Marxist / fascist, you should know.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano links to his own cheeseboard gibberish.

  • gphx||

    "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."

  • 10mm||

    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?

  • 10mm||

    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.

  • 10mm||

    "That's what our Judiciary does. It's their job!!"

    Behold the authoritarian mind.

  • TxJack 112||

    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.

  • Lonegunman||

    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.

  • shawn_dude||

    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.

  • 10mm||

    Please demonstrate where 'right wing' people have demanded to own a 'bazooka'.

  • Lonegunman||

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

  • Lonegunman||

    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!

  • 10mm||

    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.

  • 10mm||

    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.

  • para_dimz||

    "Lose" Wrong tense.

  • para_dimz||

    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.

  • Abe Froman||

    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..

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online