A unanimous panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has struck down California’s “1-in-30” gun rationing law as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The law restricted citizens to one gun purchase every 30 days and was based on a ridiculous rationale that was shredded by the three-judge panel.
California Penal Code § 27535(a) states that individuals may not apply “to purchase more than one firearm within any 30-day period,” and § 27540(f) prohibits a firearms dealer from delivering any firearm if the dealer is notified that “the purchaser has made another application to purchase a handgun, semiautomatic centerfire rifle, completed frame or receiver, or firearm precursor part” within the preceding 30-day period.
Writing for the court, Judge Danielle Jo Forrest found the California law facially unconstitutional. She wrote:
California suggests that the Second Amendment only guarantees a right to possess a single firearm, and that Plaintiffs’ rights have not been infringed because they already possess at least one firearm. California is wrong. The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to “keep and bear Arms,” plural. U.S. Const. amend. II (emphasis added). This “guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 592 (emphasis added). And not only is “Arms” stated in the plural, but this term refers to more than just guns. It includes other weapons and instruments used for defense. See id. at 581. California’s interpretation would mean that the Second Amendment only protects possession of a single weapon of any kind. There is no basis for interpreting the constitutional text in that way.
The court rightfully dismisses the state’s forced and frankly frivolous argument. It then delivers a particularly lethal line on the historical prong of the analysis.
Next, the panel held that California’s law is not supported by this nation’s tradition of firearms regulation. Bruen requires a “historical analogue,” not a“historical twin,” for a modern firearm regulation to pass muster. Here, the historical record does not even establish a historical cousin for California’s one-gun-a-month law.
Thank you Donald J. Trump
While this action might have been the best available tactical option in the current situation, it is a clear, intentional, and blatant violation of Article I, Section 8, of the United States Constitution, which grants the authority and responsibility to declare war solely to Congress. So, we can also thank Donald Trump for making it crystal clear that he is essentially a mere opportunist who regards the Constitution as nothing more than an instrument of convenience, to be pointed to when it suits him, and completely disregarded whenever it does not. You evidently share that belief, is that not correct? He made not even the slightest nod toward recognizing the Constitutional requirement to involve Congress in this decision. I had long suspected him of that superficiality, but it is now confirmed beyond any reasonable debate. Frankly, I had hoped for better. BTW, the fact that Congress tried to absolve itself of its Constitutional duty in 1973 via the War Powers Act does not in any way give the President a free pass for such a violation. And please spare us the weak mantra about the Constitution not being a “suicide pact”. That idiotic meme is refutable from so many different angles (particularly in the current situation where Iran posed no true threat to the US itself) that anyone citing it should truly be embarrassed.
Once again, you present us with a post devoid of substance, echoing the same hollow assertions without development or depth. The arguments lack not only fact but also intellectual structure, much like the anonymous identity and indistinct icon that accompany them. This anonymity, rather than protecting discourse, enables a lack of accountability and reflection.
More troubling, however, is the absence of any meaningful alternative or insight into the very real consequences of the policies enacted under the current administration. The economic, geopolitical, and social disruptions caused by Biden and the Democrats are neither addressed nor even acknowledged. This silence is not neutrality! It is evasion.
Dialogue requires clarity of thought and integrity of voice. Until both are present, I have no intention of entertaining such formless and unanchored commentary.
it is a clear, intentional, and blatant violation of Article I, Section 8, of the United States Constitution, which grants the authority and responsibility to declare war solely to Congress.
No it isn’t. Trump didn’t declare war. He acted, as he had the right to do. Congress can now choose to declare war, or not. A state of war will exist regardless. No declaration is needed for that.
US just bombed IRAN nuclear sites!
Seriously, shut the door.
Perhaps, “Shut The Front Door?”
Has been a longtime coming. When your enemy states in their mission statement is to kill and destroy you, you take them seriously.
Fair minded Iranians and the rest of the world have put up with this deranged regime for decades. I pray this evil regime falls from power.
I presume so. Restoration of Iran’s royal family and democracy. It’s called—> Freedom Iran.
I presume so. Restoration of Iran’s royal family and democracy. It’s called—> Freedom Iran.
The MSM narrative is that good guy’s with a gun stopping criminal shooters is a fantasy!
John Stossel exposes stories you haven’t heard of and how the FBI hides the stats since it fits the narrative!
https://youtu.be/0r_xc09q9vo?si=h71yxXblq1eC28zl
Hurray for the Campbell’s Soup kid making the right decision!
Stating that “it was time for a change of scenery,” RFK Jr.’s former brain worm disclosed on Friday that it had taken up residence in Kristi Noem’s brain.
“When Kristi was hospitalized earlier this week, there were reports of her having an ‘allergic reaction,’” the worm said in a prepared statement. “Actually, that was just her brain reacting to me moving in.”
According to the parasitic nematode, moving from Kennedy’s brain to Noem’s required little adjustment because “I was already familiar with a brain that small.”
The worm added that it was “surprised” how easy it had been to gain access to Noem’s brain, noting, “It’s harder for a US senator to get into one of her press conferences.”
^ Stupid ^
So funny I forgot to laugh.
Ear worm is a musical tune you’re hearing over and over. A brain worm is a thought that reoccurs …
ANO’S MOM helped him right that! BOTH are LAME!
WRITE
In other news, Reuters / Ipsos is still conducting polls despite their history of flailing at taking the pulse of American voters. In their latest press release on a poll they allegedly conducted, while failing to provide the original data, Reuters / Ipsos concluded:
Democrats want new leaders, focus on pocketbook issues, Reuters/Ipsos poll finds
California Governor Gavin Newsom, who is viewed as a potential Democratic presidential candidate in 2028, agrees. “People don’t trust us, they don’t think we have their backs on issues that are core to them, which are these kitchen table issues,” Newsom said on his podcast in April.
NB: it is instructive of their erroneous polling data, they quote Newsom in April even if their alleged “poll’s findings” are from June 11 through 16. As an aside, Newsom is often cited as a potential candidate. He doesnt have a snowball’s chance in hell against Rahm Emmanuel
Democratic strategists who reviewed the poll’s findings said they send a clear message. “Voters are very impatient right now,” said Mark Riddle, who heads Future Majority, a Democratic research firm. “They want elected officials at all levels to address the cost of living, kitchen-table issues and affordability.”
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/democrats-want-new-leaders-focus-pocketbook-issues-reutersipsos-poll-finds-2025-06-19/
David Hogg was not reached for comment
🤡
Exclusive: Harris widens lead over Trump, Reuters/Ipsos poll finds
– August 29, 2024
Rahm Emanuel is a savvy, realistic, well seasoned, tempered politician. Newsom is ROFLMAO material
Rahm Emanuel on possible White House bid: ‘I have something I think I can offer’
Emanuel has acknowledged he’s considering running for president in 2028 and has been one of the party’s loudest critics after Democrats suffered a disappointing November election. He’s notably described the Democratic Party brand as “weak and woke” and “toxic” and suggested the party has only lost supporters in recent years. “Politics is addition, not subtraction, and we’ve been doing subtraction really well,” he said at an Economic Club of Chicago event in March, according to WGN-TV.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/rahm-emanuel-possible-white-house-132801478.html
Wasting your time, Estovir. They aren’t going to change. They aren’t too bright. They have a population that’s easily manipulated. Fyi
Chicago, Illinois
Nuff Said
In interviews multiple farmers expressed their dismay with the loss of farm workers under Donald Trump’s harsh immigration policies and his administration’s waffling on subsidies.
In a deep dive focusing on one farmer who voted for Trump, 36-year-old J.J. Ficke of Kirk, Colorado, the paper is reporting that he along with other farmers are facing possible ruination now that the round-up of immigrants have begun in earnest and promised help is uncertain.
“The federal government had promised JJ a $200,000 grant, spread across two years, to cover the cost of a legal seasonal farmhand from Latin America. The grants are intended to help cover the costs of wages, workers compensation, travel to the US, accommodation, food, transportation on the job, and other expenses. But then Trump, in the earliest days of his second term, threatened to break tens of thousands of those deals, suspending billions in agricultural funding and decimating the staff that managed it.
Now those farmers, many of whom supported the president, are being left to scramble for workers of which there are few to choose from.
That, in turn, has other farmers in the same boat and lamenting they can’t depend on American citizens for manpower,
“I’ve employed Americans, and they quit after a few days,” lamented Wisconsin Tracy Vinz, “They quit after a few hours.”
Georgia produce farmer Mitch Lawson claimed he “lost nearly two dozen American employees before he qualified for $200,000,” with Lawson stating, “I’ve had a couple who didn’t even last a whole day.”
The report goes on to note that the inability to get workers is not the only thing plaguing the Ficke farm.
The family has no health insurance. Their 7 year old daughter has Type I diabetes requiring constant blood sugar monitoring and an insulin pump. Luckily she qualifies for Medicaid, but now they face the threat of losing that care for their daughter.
So to summarize, Trump is rounding up all the undocumented workers that farmers rely on to produce the food that ends up on our tables. Americans refuse to do the work.
Trump is simultaneously cancelling a Biden administration plan to subsidize farmers who are willing to go the legal route of bringing in seasonal workers from Latin America on temporary work visas.
^ Paid DNC troll. Ignore. ^
Notice, no website to read from
He is paid by his handlers by the character even if he is does not provide his name nor source. Left wing agitprop with not one original nor intelligent thought.
“When matters are desperate we must put on a desperate face.”
– Robert Burns
https://www.rawstory.com/trump-farmers-2672410822/
You are talking about polices that have been in the works (legislation benefiting “green” zero-carbon agendas and big business) across several administrations, especially at the state level. Tell the whole truth.
@Anonymous
Really, you aren’t fooling anyone. Take your troll dollars and go back to your parents’ house.
“Take your troll dollars and go back to your parents’ house.”
In the interest of sound metaphors, shouldn’t you direct him back under the bridge?
Clearly, to continue the metaphor, their house is a bridge.
😂 no doubt the grant money is correct and he hires no one… why should he when he got 200 thou .
I am as supportive of farmers as any other producers.
That does not mean that we should subsidize Farmers.
End the entirety of US price controls and subsidies.
End welfare
End corporate welfare.
As to Tariffs – Tariffs are a tax, We should not levy a tax and then subsidize those impacted by the tax – that is just stupid.
Tariffs are a form of sales tax.
While ALL taxes negatively impact the economy sales taxes are among the most efficient and have the lest economic impact.
If we were wise we would get rid of ALL income tax, ALL property tax, All capital gains tax, all other forms of tax at the federal state and local level and we should
tax entirely through sales tax.
Sales taxes are the most efficient and most transparent taxes.
These are not “undocumented workers” – most have plenty of documents – usually forged.
Regardless they are people who have come to the country illegally.
If you do not like our immigrantion law – go to congress and change it.
If you really do not want a King for president, they expect – DEMAND that presidents FOLLOW THE LAW.
Trump is following US immigration law. We can KNOW that if we change the law a president that follows the law will abide by whatever we change the law too.
That is ALSO what we want from our courts.
The major policy questions are decided by CONGRESS – not the president.
The powers of the president are there to deal with the day to day operation of the country, and to deal with dynamic events that take congress to long to address.
The role of the courts is to assure that the actions of congress are constitutional, and the actions of the president are lawful and constitutional.
It is NOT to decide what the polices of the government should be.
US immigration law requires those who are not in the US legally to be deported.
That is the job of the president.
It is NOT the president or ICE’s job to decide which illegal aliens should be allowed to stay and which can not.
If you want to protest – go to the DC Mall and protest US immigration law to congress.
Your “undocumented workers” are an ilegal government subsidy to farmers or whoever hires them.
YOU passed laws, like US minimum wage laws that require employers to pay more than a task is worth.
That leaves them several options.
Over pay for labor and increase prices – which reduces demand and will cause some small portion to go out of business.
Automate – which agriculture has been increasingly doing.
Shift to crops where the higher price of labor is justifiable.
hire people illegally who will work for less.
The point is the dysfunction that you complain about in the marketplace is of your own making.
I will happily allow employers to hire whoever they please at whatever wage the worker and employer agree on.
But that is illegal. YOU have made that illegal.
The president is just as obligated to faithfully execute the laws that you like as he is to do so with the laws you do not like.
If you do not like a law – CHANGE IT.
ATS – your whole post is full of idiocy and is a beautiful demonstration of exactly why we need free markets.
Why should govenrment decide who employers hire for a job ?
Why should govenrment subsidize ANYTHING ?
Consumers should directly pay the actual cost of tomatoes or Steel in the price of the goods.
That allows consumers to make proper decisions regarding the value to them of the purchases they make.
You should decide if you want black raspberries for your cereal based on the true cost of the backraspberries.
The same should be true of every other good that you purchase.
Nothing that you buy should be subsidized or disparately taxed.
This allows YOU to make your decisions as to what it is that you purchase that is important to you based on the real price.
Trump’s economic policies are overall good – but they are far from perfect.
But it is really stupid to criticise Trump for the economic policies he is actually getting RIGHT.
There is no good reason to subsidize farmers – or farm workers or anything else.
We should not subsidize medical care or anything else.
The prices of goods and services and the decisions that consumers make based on those prices are what determines what the market produces, how resources are allocated.
Only 2% of immigrants — legal and illegal — work in ag. No sensible attempt to deport 10 million illegals would start by trying to track down 200,000 workers scattered around the country.
How about starting with the non working people Mayor Adams says cost NYC more than $1 billion a year?
I am deliberately deaf to the pleas of farmers for subsidies.
Food is a globally traded commodity. If China buys from another country rather than US farmers, That just means that whoever used to buy the Soy or whatever that is now going to china will have to buy it from the US.
The global food supply is NOT highly elastic. Soy farmers in Brazil can not suddenly produce twice as much soy just because China moved its purchases from US farmers to Brazil.
That is NOT true of SOME other goods such as steel where other suppliers CAN increase their output dramatically.
And I certainly do not support steel subsidies.
I expect the president – whether democrat or republican to enforce the law.
That means deporting illegal aliens.
If as a people we do not like the outcome, then we can change our immigration law.
Huh. One more from the 9th Circuit and this could be a bonafide trend. Maybe our courts *aren’t* lost. The goings on in CA in particular are telling. Hm. Hope it portends good things for the rest of the country, these judges are getting out of control, and we really need to be able to rely on our Judicial Branch to do their jobs neutrally.
I opine that the judge’s decision was poorly reasoned. The California law does not limit the numbers of ‘arms’ an individual may own, only the rate of purchase.
This not a comment regarding his decision.
So Davy.
What should the fate be???? Hmmm
30 days. 60 days. 1 year.
Why do you care.
Unfortunately, “limits” that SEEM reasonable lead to more limits that SEEM reasonable, and it doesn’t stop there, until you’ve gotten so far afield, you don’t know how it happened. It’s one of the Saul Alinksy Rules for Radicals: gun-control on its way to the police state. No matter how the judges’ decision was reasoned in your estimation, it was auspicious.
Dianna,
Rush used to refer to what you just said as “incrementalism”. The Left has honed this to a fine art. We’re the frogs slowly being cooked and not even knowing it.
The right, by contrast, is expert in seeing incrementalism, but couldn’t, or won’t practice it, if their very lives depended on it, which they just might.
We didn’t get where we’re at in this country today, overnight, and sadly we won’t get back to a better, saner place overnight either.
I have my doubts, but let’s hope this track the 9th Circut is on is the incrememtalism we need to get back to that better, saner place we once knew.
If Republicans can learn anything from the Left, it’s how to use incrementalism to “un-cook” we frogs, before it’s really too late.
🙂 Uncooking the frogs and incrementalism: though we didn’t get into the pot overnight, and now we know it, it really IS too late for the Left. Those of us on the right are better at the fine art of common sense, thus survival, and better at honesty, thus self examination: yes, we share some blame in the liberalism that got us into the pot in the first place.
Professor – I also scratched my head at the passage that Professor Turley chose to highlight, as it does not address the most obvious argument on the other side, which is what you stated. However, when I read the opinion, I found that in a different passage they did address it, as quoted below. I have also quoted this earlier in the day, but perhaps you did not see it. First the court distinguished this case from the ten-day waiting period upheld by the Fifth Circuit, whose goal was safety, as opposed to here, where the state’s goal is delay for delay’s sake. The court continued:
We are not aware of any circumstance where government may temporally meter the exercise of constitutional rights in this manner. And we doubt anyone would think government could limit citizens’ free-speech right to one protest a month, their free-exercise right to one worship service per month, or their right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures to apply only to one search or arrest per month. We could go on. If the frequency with which constitutional rights can be exercised could be regulated in this manner without infringement, what would limit government from deciding that a right need only be available every six months or once a year or at any other interval it chooses? California had no answer to this concern at oral argument.
Kansas Elder, thank you.
My pleasure.
My preasure? It’s the standard venacular repsonse, and everybody uses it. Who cares if it pleasures you? What ever happened to, “you’re welcome?”.
Thank you for raising that issue. It is an important, substantive question that must be resolved. Whether to say “any time,” “my pleasure,” “don’t mention it,” “you’re welcome,” “no problem,” “of course” (a fairly recent addition to the lexicon), “you got it,” “no sweat,” or some other variation on the same theme . . . now, that is the burning issue of our time, which must be resolved in order to maintain peace, security, prosperity, health, welfare, safety, good morals, spiritual formation, cohesive communities, a robust energy sector, food security, financial sanity, clean air and water, green spaces, low-density housing, adequate transportation, good dental hygiene (which is more linked to overall bodily health than is widely realized), impressive musical and artistic skills, wholesome entertainment, a good circle of friends, low unemployment, meaningful work, adequate sanitation and stormwater control, and so forth.
“Thank you for raising that issue. ”
You do realize, I trust (there *I* go) that sarcasm in this comment section largely flies at an altitude much greater than the brain of the intended recipient?
“Whether to say . . .”
Touché.
“Who cares if . . .”
If you were more attuned to the meaning of words, you might realize that there is a significant difference between the two expressions.
“You’re welcome” is merely a standard acknowledgement of providing help. “My pleasure” denotes that plus having sincere personal satisfaction from the act of helping.
Imagine if a state decided to pass a law metering the amount of free speech. You are only allowed 50 words a month? Yea, that wouldn’t fly either.
You have 1 minute, school board meetings.
You have no constitutional right to speak at school board meetings at all, any more than you have a right to speak in Congress. Therefore if the school board chooses of its own free will to allow you to speak, it can impose any limits it likes.
How to control a population of gun owners is the question. The answer is- don’t.
The use of punishment to control the criminal population is the other. Punish gun owners or punish criminals
The barber of Seville… one population is gun owners only and the other population is two populations of gun owner and criminal gun owner. Punish the criminals and not gun owners.
Why were rocks used in LA protests. The police can throw rocks back.
What’s the rationale behind the rate?
There isn’t one. The purpose is simply to discourage gun ownership.
I just bought a gun. Now I want a second one. The second amendment says I have a right to buy one, but California says if I do it will throw me and the dealer in jail. How is that not an infringement?
California’s only excuse was that since I already have one, I have no constitutional right to buy another one, so they can regulate it. The court correctly found that that was nonsense, exactly the same as claiming that if I already own a book it can restrict me from obtaining another one.
It’s no joke, the Wizards of California know how to run a government. I mean gee’s riots are demonstrations, and work, well that’s to the discretion of the individual because Momma Government is always there. The elected Government and the la-la land inhabitants that elected them have turned California into a draconian deceitful Utopia of Tyranny!
George W
But they can build a fast train to NO where.
No member of the judicial branch has any authority to amend the Constitution for any reason.
Judges must constrain themselves to simply ensuring that actions comport with law.
The Constitution is written in clear English and does not require “interpretation” by judges.
Litmus test for judges: Shall Not Be Infringed.
If a judicial candidate cannot grasp the phrase, “Shall not be infringed,” he must never be confirmed.
If a judge does not strictly adhere to the phrase, “Shall not be infringed,” he must be impeached and convicted with extreme prejudice.
Political officeholders are subject to periodic vote.
Judges are subject to periodic and immediate impeachment which must be a constant consideration of Congress.
The judges are controlling commerce, not gun ownership. Clever? They tried to control ammo. I presume powder and lead for do it yourself? Focus on criminals .
That is just not true. The constitution’s language is rarely clear, and it must be interpreted. That is the judicial power, which the constitution itself explicitly vests in the federal courts.
The phrase “shall not be infringed” is not at all clear, because it doesn’t say what is an infringement. There are clearly restrictions on gun ownership that don’t infringe the RKBA, just as there are restrictions on expression that don’t abridge the freedom of speech. So for any given restriction we must know, does this infringe the RKBA / abridge the freedom of speech, or doesn’t it? Only a court can answer that.
“The Constitution is written in clear English and does not require “interpretation” by judges.”
O RLY?
90% of Americans don’t understand what “well-regulated” really means.
California’s legislators who voted for the law and the AG who argued that it’s constitutional apparently didn’t pay attention in grammar school to the grammatical number of nouns.
Jonathan: You and your loyal followers have been trashing the 9th Circuit for years–accusing it of having a “left” coast liberal mindset. But suddenly the Court issues two opinions favorable to DJT and the gun lobby and you are gushing praise for the Court in San Francisco. The 3-judge panel of the Court now permits anyone in California to load up with as many guns as they want every month.
Now right-wing nut jobs in the state can buy as many AK-47s and AR-15s as they can afford and proceed to murder more liberal or Democratic office holders–as happened in Minnesota. California should be applauded for at least attempting to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in the state. I would urge the AG of California to ask for an en banc hearing to try to stop this deadly foolishness!
I’m sure the California Zionists have plenty of weapons and ammo. They just need to convince the Reconquista’s to become the Cannon Fodder.
The who? I can’t even tell if this is meant to be antisemitic or just incoherent.
Dennis you dummy
How many times has the 9th Circuit been overturned/slapped by the Supreme court.
You can’t be this dumb, are you ?
“. . . prevent the proliferation of weapons . . .”
So a person intent on *murder* is going to say to himself: “Oops. Owning a gun is against the law. I guess that murder will have to wait.
Get real.
In Left-speak, “proliferation of weapons” is a euphemism for a well-armed citizenry. The Left hates that because it is harder to impose state dictatorship. Dictators always attempt to limit and seize the guns owned by the citizens, for obvious reasons. Dennis the liar is no exception.
Dennis,
AK47s and AR15s are WMD you say? Can these “WMD” do the following:
1. Produce an initial shockwave of 900 to 1000 Mph.
2. Generate a return blast of 50 to 500 Mph, depending on distance from Ground Zero.
3. Set paper afire up to 10 miles away.
4. Burn people’s shadows into concrete.
5. Burn the patterns on cloth into skin.
6. Melt eyeballs in their sockets.
7. Burn most of the skin off people’s bodies, riddle them with glass shards, leaving them stumbling thru streets (i.e. the walking dead).
8. Kill roughly 210 thousand people, initially with many others dying by the end of 1945 (Aggregate deaths from both Hiroshima & Nagasaki).
9. Cause countless birth defects and cancers, even to this day.
Your assertion is the most asinine I’ve ever heard. You say what you say because you’re a committed leftie, you hate anything Republican, you’ve got a severe case of TDS, and, quite frankly, you just plain don’t know what you’re talking about.
FYI, I read the book, “Hiroshima”, back in my teens, and the images in that book are forever etched in my mind. Maybe you should read it yourself?
Also, let’s not forget the chemical disaster at the Cargill plant in Bhopal, India, in which well over 2000 innocent people died. Even though that wasn’t a chemical weapon, it underscores the point that weaponized chemicals are also WMD.
Finally, Dennis, are you aware that a 5 Lb bag of weaponized anthrax is enough to kill every single person on the Eastern seaboard, from Maine to Florida?
Now, still wanna maintain AK47s and AR15s are WMD?
Kindly word of advice — think before you post, use logic instead of emotion — you just might find it’s a better combo than what you’re currently doing.
“AK47s and AR15s are WMD you say? Can these “WMD” do the following:”
And if they were, and could, it would not change the plain meaning of the 2bd Amendment one iota.
Some people deserve to have this done to them.
When a left-leaning court shuts this down, it illustrates how far left of left California has descended.
Nah, it just means you got a decent panel. There are enough good judges on the 9th circuit that occasionally you do draw a good panel.
Dennis, your claims are extreme, so extreme as to be exceptionally foolish and detestable:
1) AK-47s and AR-15’s were not used in the recent Minnesota murders;
2) claiming these weapons were used by “right-wing nut jobs…as they can [now] afford and proceed to murder more liberal or democrat office-holders” is a whole-cloth perversion of truth. —> The murderer was/is NOT right wing, but rather exemplifies a strange conglomeration of ambiguities that do not support your instigation.
The vast preponderance of political/social violence is committed by left-wing extremists.
Jeez louise, what is en banc.
First of all, it’s one panel. Even in the 9th circuit you can luck out and get a decent panel of honest judges.
Yes, anyone in California, just like anyone anywhere in the USA, has the absolute right to load up with as many guns as they want every month, just as they have the right to load up with as many books or newspapers as they want. Unfortunately in California they’re still heavily restricted by unconstitutional laws that this panel did not address.
There are no right-wing nut jobs murdering liberal or Democrat office holders. That only seems to happen to left-wing nut jobs. The nut in Minnesota was not right-wing; he seems to have believed he was acting on the orders of the very left-wing governor. You know, the one YOU wanted to be vice president.
Almost NO ONE buys a gun legally with the intention of using it for murder. Murderers obtain their weapons illegally. So this law only restricts people who are NOT murderers, or criminals of any kind, and proliferation of weapons among such people is a GOOD thing that the state has a duty to encourage, not prevent. Preventing it is not a legitimate government objective, and thus a law with that purpose fails even rational basis analysis.
My concern: will the liberals who dominate the 9th Circus en banc and reverse this decision? If they do, there would no doubt be a cert petition, but would SCOTUS grant it? But maybe I’m out over my skis and just “borrowing trouble.”
#. Speaking trouble, the use of rocks in LA protests aka quasi-riots speaks of orchestration. If arrested with a concealed weapon the charges are much worse, if shooting breaks out the LEOs will fire back. Stoneage is appropriate.
It seems the population has been reduced to hunter / gatherer. Whether it’s hunting and gathering through dumpsters or hunting and gathering social programs or gathering via looting, it’s the same reduction. It’s quite hopeless.
What the lower courts will do and say is a roll of the dice.
Kansas, I thought the 9th circuit became better balanced during Trump’s first term.
Meyer: You’re right, and OTOH the 4th Circuit, which used to be one of the most conservative circuits 30 or so years ago, has become quite liberal.
“. . . struck down California’s “1-in-30” gun rationing law as unconstitutional . . .” (JT)
According to Leftists, “nobody is above the law.” But they are above the Constitution.
I believe the root cause of the anti-constitution political activism within our government is shared between a disbelief in unalienable rights and no swift accountability for infringing them.
The security of these rights is the primary reason government exists. Regardless of where you believe these rights come from, they exist because we exist. We need to treat threats against the security of these individual rights the same as we do with threats against our national security. Just like terrorists only need to be successful once, activists only need to be successful once.
When a terrorist is caught, they are prevented from further acts. When an activist is caught, especially those swearing an oath to the constitution, they remain in their position to offend again. This has to change.
Another inciteful comment this morning.
Truth itself is “incitement.” Extreme-leftist activists are not operating on logic or even common sense, anymore. Little can be done for this mental illness, but to be the adult parents they need in curbing their demands and tantrums.
Inalienable rights are beliefs and the demonstration is they can be taken, and no one will remember such bunk as inalienable when brainwashing is complete.
The fundamental belief is white man bad. It’s genocide? All problems will be solved. Terrible thing to think and say, pardon.
Olly, as long as decisions like this get published, and SCOTUS remains in the hands of judges willing to enforce the Constitution, it is better this way. The more solid precedent gets set for the federal district courts and state courts to follow, the better, IMHO.
as long as decisions like this …it is better this way.
Kind of like an “Iron Dome” over individual rights? Eventually you have to remove the threat so they cannot launch in the first place.
oldman, would you think it better to allow terrorists to remain free, as long as they are prevented from committing additional acts of terrorism? Of course not.
Another important thing to consider is political activism that infringes rights does damage beyond the right it infringes, long before it gets to a courts decision.
What happens to the initiator of the unconstitutional act? What happens to courts that rule in favor of the unconstitutional act? Nothing. In fact while one act works it’s way through the courts, the same people remain in a position to launch more assaults on our rights.
Nassim Taleb writes about the problem with bureaucrats who don’t have skin in the game, in other words, no swift consequences for infringing on unalienable rights. Your root cause analysis is insightful for how to fight, fight, fight.
You have made a convincing case that the threat from a terrorist is less than the threat from an activist judge. The penalities should be at least comparable.
Thank you Ray. While I’m open to debate regarding the severity of the penalty, I will not concede the point that it needs to be swift.
OLLY,
Well said. If there was some kind of accountability in violating or infringing on Constitutional rights, there should be some kind of default loss of public position, job, fines and in extreme cases prison time. Then and only then can we expect these baseless laws and lawless activists would then cease.
I absolutely agree, Upstate.
I suggest something like a political credit scoring system. A member of Congress has 1 vote, but that vote has only as much power as has been earned. Vote in favor of an act ruled unconstitutional, their voting power drops some %. Figure out the same sort of penalty for the courts, and any other position that swears an oath. Eventually, reduced power will make these people toxic to a party and constituents.
Sounds good but there’s a sizable population that believes the 2nd should be removed.
Understood. However they will be trying to elect representatives that would vote themselves and their constituents out of power.
Well stated Olly!
I believe you’re right.
What’s going on with the 9th lately? Such good, rational decisions. Amazing.
#. Does the 9th circuit blow with the wind or has it been set free.
The democrats keep doing this because reducing crime and saving lives is not their goal. Total disarmament is their goal because they cannot complete their socialist agenda as long as Americans are armed.
“Total disarmament is their goal”
That is, of course, only an interim goal. The ultimate objective being to eliminate any possible means of resistance to authority, so that everyone will need to behave in a way that “they” think is correct. “They” can’t even grasp the completely irrational and delusional (ntm narcissistic) aspect of that premise, which is the assumption that whatever authority is in force will of necessity agree with their concept of what is “correct”.
Total disarmament yes, but also an insolvent USA. Manchurian candidate Obama’s cloward-piven strategy.
The goal is to destroy the constitution because white man bad and the land must be purged because of slavery.
Nevermind slavery was always worldwide and an economic system. The USA was the first nation worldwide and historically to outlaw slavery. ….
But it must be punished. In other news what’s China up to these days?
The USA was the first nation worldwide and historically to outlaw slavery. ….
What the HELL are you talking about? The USA was one of the last nations to do so! It was the UK and France that abolished slavery and set about suppressing the slave trade. The USA came along much later, and it took a civil war to do it.
Milhouse, you are correct. A number of nations abolished slavery earlier than the US, but individual northern states ended slavery even earlier than those nations. Vermont ended slavery before the Constitution was written, and a few others before the 19th century.
When the responsibility for slavery is examined, we should recognize America was also a leader in ending it. Too often America is blamed disproportionately because it took some states far too long to catch up.
But with California’s one-gun-a-month law, delay itself is the purpose. By categorically prohibiting citizens from purchasing more than one firearm of any kind in a 30-day period, California is infringing on citizens’ exercise of their Second Amendment rights. See Infringement, Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024) (“An encroachment or trespass on (a right, privilege, etc.).”).
We are not aware of any circumstance where government may temporally meter the exercise of constitutional rights in this manner. And we doubt anyone would think government could limit citizens’ free-speech right to one protest a month, their free-exercise right to one worship service per month, or their right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures to apply only to one search or arrest per month. We could go on. If the frequency with which constitutional rights can be exercised could be regulated in this manner without infringement, what would limit government from deciding that a right need only be available every six months or once a year or at any other interval it chooses? California had no answer to this concern at oral argument.
I find this passage more responsive to California’s argument than the one the professor quoted.
Separately, it is heartening to see the court rely on the actual text of the Constitution to anchor its ruling. A surprisingly straightforward and logical approach.
A surprisingly straightforward and logical approach.
Refreshing! Like coming out of a smoke-filled room to breathe fresh air.
“We are not aware . . .”
*That* is a brilliant, devastating argument.
An unprecedented limitation on a constitutionally protected liberty
Is California’s legislature a pack of new immigrants? Are California’s legislators left wing hacks? Is California’s governor a clown? Does California’s legislature think California was “stolen”? Does California’s legislature think white man bad?
Hey, California’s legislature, the UV rays are pounding the once fertile fields into dust. Big clue from God almighty, the God of nature and all that was made.
Get a clue..
Just a move at deletion… there’s a new political system. I think it’s starve and die of thirst and cold. You have a farm OMFK. good idea.
Quite a reduction.
Shalom
It’s another affirmation of Democrats being unable to learn from their failures. How many times do they need to get slapped down so hard that it actually results in something even more distasteful than the current regulations?
The Democrats continue to make laws to constrain the people’s right to keep & bear arms that are incredibly unconstitutional. The slap from the courts usually end up restoring other, less conspicuous violations already in place.
Had the California legislature passed a law restricting firearm purchases to one every third day, they probably would’ve avoided a court challenge. Instead, the court has clarified the 2nd Amendment to mean a person can now buy as many firearms as they wish as often as they like. This ruling applies to the whole country, so it can be used to strike down any similar laws in rest of the country.
Morons.
“How many times do they need to get slapped down so hard that it actually results in something even more distasteful than the current regulations?”
At least in the case of 2A infringements, they clearly do not care how may times that happens. They are not depending on winning. Lawsuits of this nature cost a lot of money. One side depends almost entirely on donations from firearms owners. The other side gets money shoveled in not only from Soros and Bloomberg affiliated organizations, but in many cases funds laundered through NGOs that was originally “donated” by taxpayers (USAID, et al). To them, its a game of attrition, and while they lately have accumulated some unaccustomed losses, the ultimate outcome is far from clear. Sufficient Democratic victories in 2026 and 2028 could erase all of the recent progress in a virtual heartbeat.
should have written “lawsuits AND appeals”…
This ruling applies to the whole country,
No, it doesn’t. It applies only within the 9th circuit.