It’s a start, but is it premature?

From the LA Times:

A coalition including the National Rifle Assn. on Thursday filed a second lawsuit challenging California’s new gun laws, this time arguing a ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines is unconstitutional.

NRA attorneys representing the California Rifle and Pistol Assn., the group’s state affiliate, filed the lawsuit in federal court in San Diego, maintaining that the law banning possession of magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition violates the due process and takings clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

Last month, the NRA and affiliated groups filed a lawsuit challenging another new law that bans the sale of semiautomatic rifles with bullet buttons that allow, with a tool, the removal and replacement of the magazine.

I want those repressive laws overturned and, in California, it’s not going to happen legislatively. The Federal courts are probably the best hope to get rid of them. But I worry that the courts are not ready to accept the Second Amendment at face value.

I realize the lawsuit filed yesterday is based upon a due process argument but many judges have no problem ignoring such thing BECAUSE GUN!! I would feel better about this if we had a better set of judges on the Supreme Court as well as a lot more depth with originalists in the lower courts.


6 thoughts on “It’s a start, but is it premature?

  1. “…I worry that the courts are not ready to accept the Second Amendment at face value.”

    That would make them criminals then. Do we have no system for dealing with criminals in positions of power?

    • Yes, they are criminals. But they and their fellow criminals are in control of the justice department. They need to be replaced before they can be prosecuted.

      • Impeachment is the obvious answer, followed by conviction of perjury as well as of infringement on constitutional rights under color of authority.
        While the 2nd Amendment is the section of the Constitution most universally despised by the political class, it isn’t the only one by a long shot. They also disapprove of Article 1 Section 8, the 1st Amendment, the 4th, the 5th, and most of the others. They probably don’t have much of an opinion about the 3rd Amendment, I suppose.

  2. Well, we know a few things.
    Even if the Federal District court rules for our side, it’s going to appealed and that means to the 9th circus.
    What will happen there is that which ever side loses will file for an rehearing ‘en banc’.
    Now past performance being predictive of future idiocy in the case of the clowns on the bench at the 9th, our side will lose – as you said Because Gun!
    Then the decision will have to made whether to pursue it to SCOTUS, and the ultimate question of whether or not there are four of the justices (that number being required for a grant of certiorari) that care enough about the subject to decide that the case will be heard.
    Years will pass.
    This does not mean that the attempt is futile.

  3. I doubt the bullet button issue gets much traction. I have higher hopes for the due process and taking angles.

  4. Pingback: SayUncle » In Cali

Comments are closed.