In an attempt to subvert the Supreme Court’s clear directions in the Bruen decision, California’s gun grabbing Democrats have actually made their case weaker through their own arguments. Armed Scholar Anthony Miranda:
Some takeaways:
“The state of California just backed themselves into a major corner in the California ‘assault weapons’ ban case, Miller v Bonta.”
California “requested that the Ninth Circuit vacate Judge [Roger] Benitez’s ruling and remand the case back down to him for him to have to completely rehear the case all over again from square one. This was the State of California’s effort to stall this case out as long as possible because that’s really one of the only cards they have left.”
“[Firearms Policy Coalition] just obliterated all the State of California’s arguments in their reply, and they completely trapped the State of California with their own words.”
In short, California was still trying to argue that the two-step approach to exercising Second Amendment would be upheld on appeal despite the fact that the Supreme Court had explicitly bitch-slapped the two-step approach into oblivion.
California also falsely announced that in striking down the two-step approach, the Supreme Court had created a new legal framework, when in fact they had merely explicitly affirmed the existing framework of Heller.
The district court “found that California’s ban on modern firearms was not one of the presumptively lawful measures that was identified in Heller, and also found that the ban on modern firearms has no historical pedigree.”
To whit: “Prior to the 1990s, there was no national history of banning weapons because they were equipped with features like pistol grips, collapsible stocks, flash hiders, flare launchers or barrel shrouds.”
“Benitez ultimately found that those arguments were exactly the type that the Supreme Court and Heller broadly caution courts against when deciding whether analogous regulations were long-standing. Something that was put in place or didn’t pop up until the 1930s or the 1940s or 50s doesn’t actually align with the historical pedigree that the supreme
court commands that courts must look at.”
California “acts as if Judge Benitez did not consider text as informed by history, when in fact he actually did in his original ruling. Also, all the harm California claims that will be suffered if the state is lifted has also been found 100% illegitimate prior by Benitez himself.”
It would be nice if the citizens of California could enjoy the Second Amendment rights enjoyed by American citizens in the overwhelming majority of the other 49 states…
This entry was posted on Wednesday, July 20th, 2022 at 8:19 PM and is filed under Democrats, Supreme Court, video. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
15 Responses to “California’s Gun Grabbers Screw Themselves”
[…] is building golf courses, and Happy #84 to new Hall of Famer Tony Oliva BattleSwarm: California’s Gun Grabbers Screw Themselves Behind The Black: NSF to do environmental impact statement on TMT, NASA awards SpaceX’s […]
Depending on the timing of the arguments in the 9th Circuit and the release of Bruen it’s possible that the Asst. Attorney General making those arguments might have some explaining to do regarding the duty of candor to a tribunal and the AAG’s lack thereof.
Let me volunteer as your spell checker:
“The district court “found that California’s ban on modern farms …” That would really mess up California’s economy, but maybe you meant ‘firearms”.
“To whit” is meaningless, since “whit” means a very small amount, in ” I care not one whit”. The correct expression is “To wit”, meaning “namely”.
And I wonder if this can be correct: “Also, all the harm California claims that will be suffered if the state is lifted has also been found 100% illegitimate prior by Benitez himself.” It is geologically possible, though not extremely likely, that the state of California will be lifted by some future earthquake. Still, I wonder if this quote is correct.
Don’t be so rushed to spell-check the “farms”…. Commiefornicate is doing everything in their playbook to drive farms into oblivion. From withholding water to taxing cow flatulence to limiting the fertilizers they can use, they are actively working to ensure that people starve and push through their Great Reset” agenda.
It seems a bit strange to see people nitpicking about spelling, when the entire state of CA might get their noses rubbed into the piss spot that was one of their worst regulations on firearms. And if they do try an end around, I am guessing that the court system will not be so state friendly, knowing that the SCOTUS has just handed down a well written and strongly worded opinion, directing the method on how to decide case law in regards to firearms.
I can think of nothing worse as a judge than to have a higher court come down on me, and hammer me on how I screwed up in my decision, when the ruling was right there in black and white, from only a very short time ago.
The states that are trying to figure out a way to cheat their citizens are likely to have their behinds spanked, and hard.
The whole question is going to be rendered moot, when the inevitable economic collapse finally comes home. Californians are going to have a lot more to worry about than the nitty-gritty of which pistol features are legal once they can’t afford to incarcerate the felonious.
It’s all a bunch of morons re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, desperately trying to keep them in place whilst the ship sinks under them. Hell, at this point? The metaphor might more aptly be phrased as “trying to keep the deck chairs on the Titanic after it has sunk, and is halfway to the bottom of the Atlantic…”
One thing I’ve always wondered, in terms of if it’s possible or would ever happen:
We know that badly misbehaving with firearms earns a lifetime prohibition on firearms ownership.
When will a court finally decide that badly misbehaving with firearms legislation earns a similar lifetime prohibition?
As in, “So-and-so has repeatedly written and tried to pass laws he has already been told unconstitutionally violate the Second Amendment, and has repeatedly petitioned lower courts to ignore the clear rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States. He is now prohibited from writing and voting on any further legislation that may affect the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment. Any attempt by him to write or vote on such legislation shall be treated as Contempt of Court, and any such laws shall be considered moot and unenforceable.”
It should be up to the voters to clean up the elected representatives, but that’s not how it has worked out, in practice. People don’t pay attention to the bastards, or throw them out for infringing on their rights via the legislative process. It’s a mess of our own creation.
[…] is building golf courses, and Happy #84 to new Hall of Famer Tony Oliva BattleSwarm: California’s Gun Grabbers Screw Themselves Behind The Black: NSF to do environmental impact statement on TMT, NASA awards SpaceX’s […]
The process is the punishment…strike down one law, write another. Lather, rinse, repeat ad. nauseum… How many divisions does Roberts have?
Depending on the timing of the arguments in the 9th Circuit and the release of Bruen it’s possible that the Asst. Attorney General making those arguments might have some explaining to do regarding the duty of candor to a tribunal and the AAG’s lack thereof.
Let me volunteer as your spell checker:
“The district court “found that California’s ban on modern farms …” That would really mess up California’s economy, but maybe you meant ‘firearms”.
“To whit” is meaningless, since “whit” means a very small amount, in ” I care not one whit”. The correct expression is “To wit”, meaning “namely”.
And I wonder if this can be correct: “Also, all the harm California claims that will be suffered if the state is lifted has also been found 100% illegitimate prior by Benitez himself.” It is geologically possible, though not extremely likely, that the state of California will be lifted by some future earthquake. Still, I wonder if this quote is correct.
“The district court “found that California’s ban on modern farms was not one of the presumptively lawful measures that was identified in Heller…”
Is even AGRICULTURE being cancelled now in California? Amazing.
[…] Battleswarm: California’s Gun Grabbers Screw Themselves […]
The cows are not happy … “ban on modern farms”.
Fixed.
[…] Battleswarm: California’s Gun Grabbers Screw Themselves […]
Don’t be so rushed to spell-check the “farms”…. Commiefornicate is doing everything in their playbook to drive farms into oblivion. From withholding water to taxing cow flatulence to limiting the fertilizers they can use, they are actively working to ensure that people starve and push through their Great Reset” agenda.
It seems a bit strange to see people nitpicking about spelling, when the entire state of CA might get their noses rubbed into the piss spot that was one of their worst regulations on firearms. And if they do try an end around, I am guessing that the court system will not be so state friendly, knowing that the SCOTUS has just handed down a well written and strongly worded opinion, directing the method on how to decide case law in regards to firearms.
I can think of nothing worse as a judge than to have a higher court come down on me, and hammer me on how I screwed up in my decision, when the ruling was right there in black and white, from only a very short time ago.
The states that are trying to figure out a way to cheat their citizens are likely to have their behinds spanked, and hard.
The whole question is going to be rendered moot, when the inevitable economic collapse finally comes home. Californians are going to have a lot more to worry about than the nitty-gritty of which pistol features are legal once they can’t afford to incarcerate the felonious.
It’s all a bunch of morons re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, desperately trying to keep them in place whilst the ship sinks under them. Hell, at this point? The metaphor might more aptly be phrased as “trying to keep the deck chairs on the Titanic after it has sunk, and is halfway to the bottom of the Atlantic…”
One thing I’ve always wondered, in terms of if it’s possible or would ever happen:
We know that badly misbehaving with firearms earns a lifetime prohibition on firearms ownership.
When will a court finally decide that badly misbehaving with firearms legislation earns a similar lifetime prohibition?
As in, “So-and-so has repeatedly written and tried to pass laws he has already been told unconstitutionally violate the Second Amendment, and has repeatedly petitioned lower courts to ignore the clear rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States. He is now prohibited from writing and voting on any further legislation that may affect the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment. Any attempt by him to write or vote on such legislation shall be treated as Contempt of Court, and any such laws shall be considered moot and unenforceable.”
Hey, a guy can dream, right?
It should be up to the voters to clean up the elected representatives, but that’s not how it has worked out, in practice. People don’t pay attention to the bastards, or throw them out for infringing on their rights via the legislative process. It’s a mess of our own creation.
What we need is judges ready to enjoin all questionable gun laws until they have made it through the court system.
IOW gun laws need to be treated like abortion Las were treated between Roe and Dobbs