Here’s a story I missed from September that takes on an even more sinister cast in retrospect.
Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of a new Second Amendment lawsuit challenging multiple parts of California SB2, which unilaterally declares numerous locations as “sensitive places” where California will now ban the carry of firearms by licensed, law-abiding Californians. The complaint in Carralero v. Bonta can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.
“SB2 restricts where persons with licenses to carry a concealed weapon may legally exercise their constitutional right to wear, carry, or transport firearms. And it does so in ways that are fundamentally inconsistent with the Second Amendment and the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen,” argues the complaint. “The Second Amendment does not tolerate these restrictions. This Court should enter judgment enjoining their enforcement and declaring them unconstitutional.”
“With Gov. Newsom’s signing of SB2 today, California continues to exhibit its disdain for the rights of Californians, the U.S. Constitution, and the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision,” said Cody J. Wisniewski, FPC Action Foundation’s General Counsel and Vice President of Legal, and FPC’s counsel. “Unfortunately for California, and contrary to Governor Newsom’s misguided statements, the state does not have the power to unilaterally overrule individual rights and constitutional protections. Fortunately, courts across the nation have already struck down laws just like SB2, and we expect the same result here.”
FPC is joined in this lawsuit by three individuals, Orange County Gun Owners, San Diego County Gun Owners, and California Gun Rights Foundation.
If Democrats actually revered the Supreme Court as much as they claim to, Bruen would have ended their attempts to pass Second Amendment infringing legislation. But the goal of disarming the civilian population is only slightly less sacred a Democratic Party cause than taxpayer-funded abortions. So they soldier on trying to thwart the Constitution.
Here is the relevant text of SB2.
This bill would remove those exemptions, except as specified. The bill would make it a crime to bring an unloaded firearm into, or upon the grounds of, any residence of the Governor, any other constitutional officer, or Member of the Legislature. The bill would also prohibit a licensee from carrying a firearm to specified locations, including, among other places, a building designated for a court proceeding and a place of worship, as defined, with specific exceptions. By expanding the scope of an existing crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
Well, it’s not like any particular houses of worship are under particular threats from particular terrorist organizations, now is it?
Just four years ago on the last day of Passover, a man armed with a rifle burst into a synagogue in Poway, near San Diego, fatally shot one woman and injured three other congregants, including the synagogue’s rabbi.
A year before, an even more horrific attack on a Pittsburgh synagogue left 11 dead.
In the aftermath of the attack on Israel, many American Jews are arming themselves. But in California, not only will Jews and worshippers in other faiths be banned from protecting themselves in their houses of worship, but would-be killers will know that potential victims in “sensitive” areas will be unarmed.
Everywhere in the west, the radical left is protesting to support Hamas, despite (or perhaps because) of the latter’s calls to completely destroy the Jews. Meanwhile, Gavin Newsom and California Democrats are disarming law-abiding Jewish American citizens in their synagogues.
What are the odds?
Tags: California, Democrats, Gavin Newsom, gun control, Guns, Hamas, Jews, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, Regulation, Supreme Court
How does the State of California have the right to declare ANY private property as ‘sensitive place’ with respect to this law?
I’m fairly certain a synagogue would be private property.
Every synagogue should post signs indicating they welcome armed attendance and warning that law enforcement is not welcome without invitation (i.e., subject to criminal trespass).
“So they soldier on trying to thwart the Constitution.”
They vigorously support the “separation of church and state” too unless they decide it is necessary to prohibit the “gathering of yourselves together” for worship in the interest of Covid controls.
In truth, they embrace Caesaropapism: the state as head of the church, as this recent edict clearly indicates.
“If Democrats actually revered the Supreme Court as much as they claim to…”
Well, that all depends…
When SCOTUS issues a ruling that they like, “it’s almost as if God [!!] has spoken” (said Nancy Pelosi some years ago about some decision)…
But when SCOTUS issues a ruling that they DON’T like, “Court decisions are undemocratic!!!1!” (every leftie officeholder and columnists since 2020)…
In The Glorious Bear Flag People’s Republic, the US Constitution is seen as more of a set of optional suggestions than as rules.
“If Democrats actually revered the Supreme Court as much as they claim to, Bruen would have ended their attempts to pass Second Amendment infringing legislation.”
They only revere the Court when it issues opinions they agree with.
“In truth, they embrace Caesaropapism: the state as head of the church, as this recent edict clearly indicates.”
The Lich Queen made that abundantly clear after January 6 when she called the Capitol “…the sacred temple of our democracy.”
And remember, folks: “our democracy” = “rule by Democrats.”
[…] THINK WE KNOW HOW THIS TURNS OUT: California Democrats Disarm Synagogues. “Well, it’s not like any particular houses of worship are under particular threats from […]
Declare firearms as part of the worship service and they should be protected by the First Amendment as well as the Second.
So… What if the “church” or the “synagogue” do whatever it is they need to do in order to turn said place of worship into a normal non-church venue?
Can’t ban guns in churches if it ain’t a church. “This? This isn’t church, we’re just having ourselves a little meeting…”
Use their rules against them.
Me? I think they all ought to adopt the same rules as the old Scots regiments had, when conducting worship services. They always put out armed guards, facing outwards, just in case of an attack by those perfidious Albionese… They even did it when in garrison next door to other English regiments.
That should probably be “They only pretend to revere the Court when it issues opinions they can use to attack their enemies.” Because they don’t revere the Court, it’s just sometimes useful.
Until the litigation is resolved, just ignore SB2.
“How does the State of California have the right”
In this instance we are not discussing any right of the State of California, but a power.
A power they do not have.
Recently I was astonished upon finding out how few Israeli civilians own firearms. 2%. Most Israeli men and women have served in the military. They know how to shoot. Then they are discharged, go home, and live without the means to defend themselves. Now we know how that ends. Now Jews in California are to be disarmed in their temples. More gun-free zones. We know how that works out too.
People who depend on each other take care to treat each other well and, when they mess up, to apologize and try to make things right. A person on whom you depend but who depends not on you has no such incentive. Thus, if you cede power to someone you invite predation. No one has to “think” about it. Our brains just make it happen. Hence, the bottom line to human interaction — cede power, invite predation.
California thus ENCOURAGES predation and deaths with this any many other laws.
Israel has been run by control-freak leftists for so long that it’s not even funny. The state was founded on socialist kibbutznik lines, and never looked back.
Lately, the kibbutz has ceased being so attractive, as the contradictions of socialism come clear. They’re not going to stay recognizably socialist for much longer, and I expect that individual rights to things like self-defense are going to be enshrined in law before long. As a practical matter, they’ve no choice.
Good and hard.
Sorry, the link got sanitized:
https://jweekly.com/2021/09/15/with-newsoms-recall-victory-jewish-dems-have-one-less-thing-to-worry-about-this-yom-kippur/
Kirk, as of the 9th or 10th, the Knesset loosened many restrictions on firearm and ammunition ownership. I’m not sure how much looser it is, but they did make a change. I’m hoping it’ll be more like Texas but with their history, I doubt it will be much less.
[…] attacked are now wondering why they can’t carry a weapon for protection in their synagogue. But this is what they voted for. They wonder why the USA is sending money to terrorist groups who’s only […]
[…] end badly. […]