Quote of the Day
A new ruling from the the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals now will prevent California’s law limiting gun purchases to one every 30 days from taking effect.
While a federal district court had issued an injunction against the law, California sought a stay against the injunction via the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit issued a stay, reversing its stay after hearing oral arguments on the case.
The earlier federal district court injunction against the law now goes into full effect, preventing the law from being enforced.
…
California cited gun restrictions and taxes, and licensing laws targeting Native Americans as evidence of historical precedent for its case, leading Hayes to write limits on Native American sales — and other “groups excluded from the political community” as a historical analogue is “dubious, at best,” and that the presented historical laws did not include a “limit on the quantity or frequency with which one could acquire firearms.
…
Hayes placed a 30 day stay on the ruling pending an appeal, which is now complete, meaning Hayes’ judgment takes effect.
Kenneth Schrupp
August 19, 2024
Ninth Circuit tosses California law limiting gun purchases to one every 30 days (msn.com)
They can be very creative in their efforts to infringe upon our rights, so it will be interesting to see how California attempts to create a new law to get around this ruling. With the Bruen decision they said, paraphrasing, okay, we have to give carry licenses, but every place in a city, outside of your own home, is a “sensitive place” and the carry license does not apply.
As an example of their creativity:
California cited gun restrictions and taxes, and licensing laws targeting Native Americans as evidence of historical precedent for its case, leading Hayes to write limits on Native American sales — and other “groups excluded from the political community” as a historical analogue is “dubious, at best,” and that the presented historical laws did not include a “limit on the quantity or frequency with which one could acquire firearms.
I’m surprised they didn’t include the laws put in place by the KKK prohibiting people with black skin from firearm ownership as justification. Democrats got away with that kind of crap 100+ years ago, so why not try it again?
Politicians, give them an inch, they think their a ruler.
And this is exactly what we get when lawyers are allowed to refuse the simple text of law for financial gain.
We let them past “shall not be infringed”, and we got years of murder and strife, and countless amounts of money lost paying for it.
There is no speedy trial fast enough, nor hangman’s rope justice enough for the communist totalitarians of this world.
They’re a crime against humanity.
Stare decisis, Nuremburg, should be their speedy end.
There is a Canton in Switzerland in which the voters gather once a year to vote on various acts needing their approval. They bring swords to symbolize that they, and not the various elected officers hold the ultimate power there. I’m thinking that perhaps here OUR elected officials should recite the oath of office while kneeling on stage with their heads resting on a medieval chopping block to get the same idea across to them. Perhaps a lottery to choose a voter to stand above them and recite the oath would be worthwhile. Put the executioner’s hood on them and they can stand with the point of the sword on the platform. There is no need to raise the sword as if to chop, although Edwin Edwards and Bob Menendez might need such an object lesson.
They should remember that it was the States and the People in a convention in each state who ratified the Constitution under which they are elected and authorized to govern.
Yes, Appenzell Innerrhoden. Some vague memory says that it isn’t just a tradition to bring the sword, but a requirement: it is the proof of citizenship.
That’s reminiscent of a medieval procedure described, I think, by Stephen Halbrook in “That every man be armed”: part of the process of manumission was to give to the new freeman a spear and a shield — offensive and defensive arms that mark the citizen and are prohibited to slaves. Along the same lines, it’s important to remember that one of the main arguments in Dred Scott to deny citizenship to black Americans was that admitting they were citizens amounted to admitting that they had the right to be armed, and that was unacceptable to the so-called judges who wrote that decision.
Good on the Swiss. But I’m still of the mind that holding elections every 50 years, then hanging all the winners seems the right way to go.
The first three laws in every Jim Crow state (in different order depending on the state) were restricting voting, restricting property ownership and restricting arms. CA may have been reaching for laws in CA which was never Jim Crow although some of their restrictions on Asians were similar.
If you read the Thirteenth Amendment even halfway closely, you can see that slavery is still legal in the United States if it is imposed “as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted”. The whole point of the Jim Crow laws was to make sure that the state and local law enforcement had the discretion to bring anyone up on charges they could be convicted on, at which point the punishment was to labor on a chain gang or some similar hard labor as punishment.
I can honestly say that I never learned so much about legal procedure as when I watch the maneuverings of the Leftists, using the laws of the land to wear away the Liberties Americans had.
Yes, which is why there are “for profit” prisons in great numbers in the US.
As long as the people seeking to infringe on Rights suffer no personal consequences they will continue to do so. Especially if the costs of their efforts are borne by others…..like the taxpayers. Change that fact and the infringement efforts
will drop to near zero.