California Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed the long-anticipated “Responsible Gun Manufacturing Act,” Assembly Bill 1127, a law that may now trigger a major challenge under the Second Amendment. The law banned the Glock semi-automatic handguns that are a favorite of American gun owners, including former Vice President Kamala Harris.
The law constitutes one of the most ambitious gun bans since the Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) that gun ownership is an individual right. At the time, Justice Antonin Scalia stressed that the Second Amendment protects all types of firearms “in common use at the time” for “lawful purposes like self-defense.”
Gun control advocates have been chipping away at this concept by arguing that a variety of popular weapons, such as the AR-15, cannot be considered “in common use at the time” of the ratification.
Scalia, however, joined Justice Clarence Thomas in 2015 in a dissent in the denial of certiorari in Friedman v. Highland Park, involving a local ban on semi-automatic firearms. Thomas wrote that “several Courts of Appeals… have upheld categorical bans on firearms that millions of Americans commonly own for lawful purposes” and that such rulings are “noncompliance with our Second Amendment precedents.”
Thomas noted that such rulings suggested that states could ban “AR-style semiautomatic rifles” even though an “overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons.”
In the case of the AR-15, an estimated one in 20 Americans own such weapons. The Glock is even more popular. In 2021 alone, industry data shows that Glock produced 581,944 handguns with another 465,117 in 2022. It is also the weapon of choice for an estimated over 65 percent of law enforcement agencies.
Notably, we previously discussed how Vice President Kamala Harris made a less-than-convincing pitch to gun owners during her presidential run after years of calling for gun bans. She hailed her Glock as a cherished companion. As it became apparent that Harris was losing men generally, the campaign made ham-handed efforts to reinvent Harris. In a softball interview with Oprah, Harris declared that she is a gun owner and “if somebody breaks into my house, they’re getting shot.”
When liberals like CBS’s Bill Whitaker expressed shock at her new gun-toting persona on the campaign trail, he asked if she actually fired it. Harris then did her best Rooster Cogburn, who noted “Well a gun that ain’t loaded, ain’t much good for nuthin.”
When she was the San Francisco District Attorney, Kamala Harris was one of the signatories on the District Attorneys’ amicus brief in District of Columbia v. Heller, in support of the handgun ban.
It convinced no one.
The California law will now take effect on July 1, 2026, “[banning] the sale of new Glock-brand pistols and Glock-style clones.” In my view, it is unconstitutional under prior Supreme Court precedent.
Democrats previously called for banning “Glock switches” that can be affixed to the rear of a Glock slide to make the pistol shoot full auto. However, such switches are already unlawful. They are now going after the gun itself, confirming the objections of gun rights groups that such early bans were moves to lay the foundation to ban semiautomatic weapons generally.
That seems borne out by the language of the bill. The text of AB 1127 says:
“A ‘machinegun-convertible pistol’ as any semiautomatic pistol with a cruciform trigger bar that can be readily converted by hand or with common household tools into a machinegun by the installation or attachment of a pistol converter, as specified, and “pistol converter” as any device or instrument that, when installed in or attached to the rear of the slide of a semiautomatic pistol, replaces the backplate and interferes with the trigger mechanism and thereby enables the pistol to shoot automatically more than one shot by a single function of the trigger.”
The legislation makes repeated reference to any weapon that can be “equipped with a pistol converter.” Thus, even though the Glock switches are unlawful, criminals still use them and thus the gun itself falls under this category as a “machine-gun convertible” weapon.
The Supreme Court has fueled these laws by repeatedly turning down review of bans. States like Illinois outlawed some of the most commonly used rifles and magazines in America. In Bevis v. City of Naperville, the Seventh Circuit overturned the district court’s preliminary injunction against enforcement of the ban on the basis that the plaintiffs were unlikely to prevail.
While various Supreme Court Justices have expressed disagreement with Bevis, the Court refused to take up the case. However, Justice Kavanaugh said that the Court is likely to grant certiorari “in the next Term or two.”
California may have just filled that pledge.
This is alone, among SUCH a myriad of other stuff is causing a great many people to reject this state and move. This portends a great many things for CA, and a great many things for other states as these people migrate and take their nonsense with them. This is going to happen again with NYC. We all need to be prepared for that. I wish we could have relaxed after the last election. but no, we have just gotten started, such is the damage of the dems over the past couple of decades, and we had better be prepared to step up, because it will be a requirement going forward. This is all far from over, and it will continue to spread, in spite of the courts.
I wish we could just relax, too, but we can’t, today is not that day. I predict that in 20 years property in San Francisco will be real cheap, but nobody will want to buy it. Nobody cared to listen when alarms were raised years ago. 🤷🏻♂️
James,
Let us face it, the failed state of CA is just that. Failed. And it will continue to do so as long as the people of CA continue to vote for the stupid and crazy. I mean, look at the laws they passed against “Big Oil!” Two companies decided it was not worth the headaches and are leaving the state. The crunch of oil/gas supply was so much of a concern that the governors of NV and AZ wrote letters to Newslum to tell him this was a major issue as they are dependent on refineries in CA for fuel. Newslum is doing stupid and moronic things like this ban to make it look like he was “doing something!” when it is a whole of of nothing as the good professor notes, So called Glock switches are illegal in the first place. Nothing more than a warm and fuzzy to add to his ever so failed resume as governor.
This is all far from over, and it will continue to spread, in spite of the courts.
James, that’s the point I’ve been trying to make. Folks like Upstate saying the people of CA continue to vote for the stupid and crazy, assumes every person in CA votes for that. That’s no more true than to claim that because we got the likes of Obama and Biden, every voter in this country voted for their idiocy. The same reason people stayed in this country is the same reason many conservatives stay in California. Not only is it still worth fighting for, every effort needs to be made to stem the flow of their cancerous ideology to other states.
FWIW, the 10 most dangerous “cities” in the country. Chicago is missing, and as I read more, this survey uses Metropolitan Statistical Areas instead of city boundaries. Perhaps when you add the surrounding burbs around Chicago, the safer population stats there offsets the ridiculously high crime rates in Chicago itself.
I live in one of those cities, and spent 25 years of my life in another.
Memphis, TN-MS-AR
Anchorage, AK
Albuquerque, NM
Lubbock, TX
Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway, AR
Shreveport-Bossier City, LA
Bakersfield, CA
Salt Lake City, UT
Springfield, MO
Corpus Cristi, TX
https://www.safewise.com/blog/most-dangerous-cities/
“FWIW, the 10 most dangerous “cities” in the country. Chicago is missing, and as I read more, this survey uses Metropolitan Statistical Areas instead of city boundaries. Perhaps when you add the surrounding burbs around Chicago, the safer population stats there offsets the ridiculously high crime rates in Chicago itself.”
OR it’s for the same reason that NYC isn’t on the list:
“The country’s biggest city is always conspicuously absent from our report, and inquiring minds want to know why. The reason is that NYC doesn’t participate in the FBI’s crime report collection. ”
Also, I have learned not to trust lists such as that on on general principles, because the sources of the data they use frequently fail to discriminate between the defensive use of firearms and the use of firearms by thugs to perpetrate crimes.
Defensive use of firearms where the weapon actually gets fired are a tiny % sliver of shootings of persons. The great majority are criminal. Those include drug dealer shootouts (gangs) and murders of family members in a fit of rage.
Statistics rarely capture the many instances where the good guy waves the gun and the bad guy runs away and decides not to embark upon a course of violence after all. No shots were fired by anyone, but the gun was indispensable in preventing violence.
Exactly! I once felt compelled to draw my gun and put it against a dude’s forehead. Years ago, but the point is, that was never counted officially because I did not blow his effing head off. Defense of another, not me. I read something the other day, somewhere, that defensive uses are way undercounted.
Plus, how do you count the deterrent effect? How many criminals who do not do home invasions because they are afraid of being shot? My guess is MILLIONS!
Floyd – right on . . . even though I don’t carry a gun, I’m safer because others do and the bad guys don’t know who is or isn’t armed.
You were actually dumb enough to first pull a gun, and then get so close you could put it against a dude’s head rather than keeping your distance?
Where did you learn that tactical move? Watching Lethal Weapon and Die Hard movies over a series of Christmases? Some homeys posturing in the ghetto? Did you also hold the gun sideways in approved ghetto methodology while doing that?
I wonder if you will ever realize how lucky you are that it wasn’t somebody who actually knew what they were doing? Otherwise, they would have taken that gun of yours away from you and you would be lucky if the only thing they did was shove it up your ass rather than using it to reduce you to room temperature.
Floyd, you never miss a chance to be-clown yourself in order to entertain the rest of us.
Thank you! I am so glad that I entertain you!
Now, as to the substance of your comment. I was there, and I know the full story, and you don’t. That person was not a stranger to me. He knew me, and he knew better than to mess around with me. I was not frail and weak in those days. Quite the contrary. I had no fear of him taking my gun, because I would have torn him apart before he could use it. And he knew it. It was not my size, or any physical martial ability, as much as it was my personality. Which, I can become extremely intense and downright mean and nasty, when necessary. He was very much aware of that. My intention was, that he leave the person that he was messing with alone, and not ever show his face again. I accomplished that goal, without shooting him, or beating the ever-loving crap out of him. We have never seen him since.
This was maybe in the late 1970’s, when I was about 25 or 26 years old, stood 6’4″ and weighed about 250 pounds. I was not as kind and mellow as I am now. If I had not been sure of myself, or, if he had been a stranger, then I would have maintained a safer distance. But I wanted to be right up in his face, up close and personal, where he would understand that he had best do what I wanted him to do, or there would be hell to pay.
There was one other time, in the late 1990’s or early 2000’s when I was prepared to shoot someone. I had a female friend who bar-tended. A stranger came into the joint, about an hour or so before closing, and he made her feel extremely uncomfortable. She had the intuition that he was going to rob the place at closing time. And/or assault her. She had made a dude in the drug trafficking business very angry, and he had flatly told her that he would have her taken care of, and not in a nice way. She also concealed carry after that. She called me, so I showed up a few minutes later, and sat there for an hour nursing off Irish coffee, which for me was coffee with St. Brendans in it, for flavor. I had a 38 in my coat pocket. I was sitting a few tables away from him, working crossword puzzles and reading a book. I positioned myself so that he would have his back to me should he approach the cash register, or start any trouble. Or, if he came at me first, he would have his back to her, and she could pop him. Nothing ever came of that, but he was either a weirdo or on something. I think she made a good call on him.
“Quite the contrary. I had no fear of him taking my gun, because I would have torn him apart before he could use it.”
The amusement continues Floyd. I will take you at your word that you were the equivalent of Anderson Sylvia in those days. I will also take you at your word that you could have torn the person whose head you pressed your gun against limb from limb – no contest.
But as tough as you were back then in comparison to the frail person you were threatening, the best you could do was to press the muzzle of a gun against his head! “Never laid a glove on him, I didn’t!”
Now that’s funny.
No, I was hardly a Silva, and never had martial training. I was just big and strong, with a mean streak, and I could have clobbered him with little effort. The muzzle against his forehead was the “best” that I could do, because that accomplished my goal, without any bloodshed. That impressed him with the reality that his Death was on the table, and not just a potential a$$-kicking. Plus, I did not have to risk me losing control, overdoing things, and breaking his damn neck. But, if you are faced with that sort of situation, then you must do what you think best under the circumstances. I hope that you are as successful as I was!
Why would you go after criminals? They’re just human beings who have lost their way. Now law abiding humans seem to know the difference between right and wrong and they should be held to a higher standard.
I saw a blurb the other day: 1A applies to technology that didn’t exist at the time it was written, such as television, radio, and electronic communications. 4A also applies to things that didn’t exist at that time, such as electronic eavesdropping by the police or imaging technologies that can “see through” opaque barriers. So, doesn’t 2A also apply to guns that didn’t exist at the time? The text seems to say so: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The word “Arms” is not textually limited to those in existence at the time of ratification.
Yes, I agree. But then, “A well regulated militia…” is also subject to more modern alternative for having a mature, responsible adult providing loose supervision of the use of firearms in his/her local social sphere. This would allow a policy where young adults (< 26) require an older adult sponsor to purchase a firearm, where the sponsor co-signs for the purchase, and holds onto some liability for criminal use of the weapon.
What we've done mistakenly is to abdicate ALL supervisory responsibility — because militias don't exist? That's not keeping with the spirit of 2A. Some adult supervision (decentralized, non-bureaucratic) was wise back then, and would be wise to re-establish now.
To listen to school kids who have to fear a school shooting — that's a devastating failure of our culture and law.
It's repugnant how pro-gun people don't care enough about those regular school shootings (every 2 weeks) to compromise on ANYTHING. An officer stationed at every school is an absurd idea — you can't expect vigilance if the odds of an attack per school per day is < one in a million.
pbinca tried this tired old Democrat lie: But then, “A well regulated militia…” is also subject to more modern alternative for having a mature, responsible adult providing loose supervision of the use of firearms in his/her local social sphere.
pbinca’s Democrat well-worn lie as to what the meaning of “well regulated” means, has been repeatedly blown out of the water by numerous SCOTUS decisions. Nor does she get to claim there now exists a more authoritative ” more modern alternative” to deprive American adult women and men of their Second Amendment rights.
No doubt pbinca and Screwsom would also demand the right to define who they will designate to be a mature responsible adult meeting that standard that they will also demand the right to create and enforce.
“well regulated” as used at the time the Constitution and both state and federal bills of rights were adopted meant “well equipped; to be in fully functional operation”. it had nothing whatsoever to do with what pbinca wants Governor Screwsom to have as a modern tool to deprive Californians of their Second Amendment rights, leaving them defenseless against her Democrat criminal Illegal Aliens.
pbinca hates the Second Amendment and the right of American women to carry arms for their defense against the Democrats’ Illegal Alien would-be rapists as much or more than her Governor Screwsom.
Listen to this frothing-at-the-mouth idiot! One absolute and immutable clause bears, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” It’s the law. That is all. Go back to your holler, Earl!
It’s repugnant how pro-gun people don’t care enough about those regular school shootings (every 2 weeks) to compromise on ANYTHING.
Surrendering to police state fascists is NOT compromise. A little peek into pbinca’s pro-gun banning Democrat world and gun control utopia that pbinca dreams of imposing on all Americans:
Hey Democrat Jackasses! | Chicago Crime, Murder & Mayhem | Criminal Infographics
https://heyjackass.com/
734 murders in gun banning Chicago in Biden’s first year in office; 528 in his last year in office, most of them children. And none with a legally owned firearm, never mind anything faintly resembling police state fascist “mentorship” that pbinca demands. Unless of course, mentorship provided by another Democrat street gang member.
What’s actually both deceitful and repugnant is how Democrat police state fascists like pbinca and Governor Screwsom turn themselves inside out hoping to redefine turf wars between two opposing Democrat street gang drug dealers on or anywhere near school property on any day or at any time suddenly become “school shootings”
As though a 0300 AM shootout between drug dealers from MS-13 and TDA was just another one of her racist Democrat Trannies walking into a Christian school like the one in Nashville to murder little kiddies.
Meanwhile, nobody here has read pbinca getting equally hysterical at the DAILY murders of school age children in Democrat ran gun banning utopias like Chicago. Day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year.
Decade after decade; gun banning Democrat mayor and city council, one after the other.
Murders despite those Democrat cities having far more Draconian gun banning laws than her attempt to slip her police state fascist nose iunder the Second Amendment tent with “reasonable compromise infringements” on the Second Amendment.
Never mind pbinca dreaming of forcing adult women and men to be deprived of their Second Amendment rights and be forced to submit to the “mentorship” of what pbinca claims will be a more “mature responsible adult” than they are for an indeterminate time. pbinca doesn’t see an utter failure of the gun prohibition laws for adult man and women of any age in these blood soaked Democrat hellholes of Second Amendment prohibitions.
pbinca is and always will be a California police state fascist demanding, just like her Governor Screwsom, that Americans have no Second Amendment rights other than what she and Screwsom get to say they have.
She demands she be given the status and power of a “more mature responsible adult”, qualified to mentor (meaning control) a female 23 year old veteran of the Afghanistan War and their access to Second Amendment rights to defend themselves.
My counter-proposal is that pbinca should have her right to vote be put under the mentorship control of any veteran of any sex and any age who served in Afghanistan to ensure her security and freedom while pbinca stayed safe back at home, attempting to destroy the Second Amendment.
Surrendering to Second Amendment banning police state fascists like pbinca is not “compromise”. It’s complete surrender, in exchange for absolutely nothing in return. And it isn’t going to happen
Most of what you said is false. First, pro-gun people do care a great deal about school shootings. They have proposed solutions with regard to armed adults at the schools to stop bad guys. The liberal lie is that the only thing that constitutes “caring” is to remove all guns from schools. This would arguably make it that much easier for bad guys who don’t care what the rules are to shoot up that many more people before officers can respond from a distance.
The other big lie you promote is that the right guaranteed by the Constitution is somehow limited by the preamble dealing with militias. First there is debate about what constituted a militia back then – males of a certain age who were capable of using arms might have been sufficient to qualify. But regardless of who wins such a debate, it is irrelevant. The preamble does not in any way limit the operative language, which by its very terms guarantees non-infringement of a right held bythe people. No reasonable person can be unsure of who “the people” are.
OldManFromKS,
And that, your comment, would make common sense. Well said.
OMFK… having thrown Democrat shyte at Professor Turley’s blog walls, and missed, pbinca has now deserted the scene to flee and survive to deceive another day. She won’t be back to debate and defend her claims and Democrat desires.
As to the militia, there are more than a few definitions from the time of the Founders and the Second Amendment:
“Who are the militia, if they be not the people, of this country…? I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”
– George Mason
“A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in use of their arms, is the best mot natural defense of a free country.”
– James Madison
“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of all Americans.”
– Tench Coxe
“The militia is our ultimate safety. The great object is that every man be armed.”
– Patrick Henry
“Militias are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
– Richard Henry Lee
pbinca attempts to cosplay as being a fair minded adherent to Constitutional governance and order. But her Democrat Fraud Shyte Show falls apart when she comes face to face with the Second Amendment that she hates with the heat of a thousand burning suns.
Anon, the quotes from the Founders about their understanding of what comprises a militia make the most sense of 2A’s text. Without the connection between “militia” and “the people,” the operative language would be a non-sequitur. And if we know anything about the Founders, they were extremely literate, at least enough so to avoid non-sequiturs.
“It’s repugnant how pro-gun people don’t care enough about those regular school shootings (every 2 weeks) to compromise on ANYTHING.”
Ok, here is your chance to shine, big mouth. Name one compromise that would have prevented Columbine. No? How about Uvalde? Oh well, how about Parkland? Nashville?
“you can’t expect vigilance if the odds of an attack per school per day is < one in a million."
Really?? How many Soviet nuclear missile attacks were there from 1960 until 1991?
Yet, American ballistic missile submarine crews maintained their vigilance through more than 200,000 days worth of strategic deterrent patrols during that period. Thats some 26 MILLION man-days of boring holes in the ocean without ever firing a single operational weapon or losing a boat at sea.
Just because you don't know what vigilance is, doesnt mean it doesnt exist.
Because a demented mass murderer, who would alter a Glock to be automatic, would never purchase the gun out of state and fail to register it.
I’m sure that all of those secretly modifying their guns they can never use will be deterred by another law making it illegal.
LMAO at you retards.
Virtue signaling at its best.
Democrats have been unable to produce a single incident of a peace officer murdered by a “cop killer bullet”. The ability to modify Glock and other semiautomatic pistols to be fully automatic for decades – are we going to see demented Democrat Birthing Boyz (or Governor Screwsom) produce an example of a mass murderer who used a Glock modified to be automatic?
LMAO: Democrat Commie Useless Idiot retards who claim their fellow Democrats slaughtering other Democrats in the gun banning blood soaked streets of Chicago is only happening because their fellow Democrat criminals in Chicago smuggled the guns from neighboring jurisdictions that DON’T require registration.
Neighboring jurisdictions that also don’t have murder rates anywhere near those of Murder City Chicago – despite NOT having Chicago Utopian gun registration and prohibition schemes.
Desperate Democrat deflection and channeling at its worst (or perhaps, it’s best).
“are we going to see … an example of a mass murderer who used a Glock modified to be automatic?”
Sure, any minute now. NTM that my understanding is that California already has a 10 round magazine capacity limit for handguns. I cannot imagine anyone so stupid as to want to fire 10 rounds in full auto, then need to reload. The ban is nothing but more stupid posturing by His Asinine Lowness Craven Screwsome.
Those cop killer bullets are the real thing! They can even penetrate the steel bucket on a front end loader! Here is proof!
While Professor Turley provided an interesting analysis of this gun issue, isn’t this potential case going to be ultimately decided on the Bruen historical tradition standard that he did not mention? — Concerned Citizen
Yes, and the first striker fire semi auto was introduced in 1893.
The Kalthoff Repeater was invented in 1630, well before there was a US. It was used by the Swedish, Russians and few others. It was a repeating rifle that could, in the hands of someone trained in its use, put 30 rounds down-range in less than a minute. Maybe if you KNEW ANYTHING AT ALL ABOUT GUNS, you wouldn’t be so arrogant.
Further, you seemed to ignore how the Supreme Court is clear new technologies not present when the Constitution was ratified, are still covered. That’s why the government can’t censor TV, Radio, and the Internet. That’s why Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Unitarians and many other faiths can practice without government interference even though they did not exist at the time. Those modes of speech and worship are covered.
End of story. Have a nice day.
Yes, dunce, but not for the reason you imagine.
Historically, we have never banned guns that can be “easily converted” to automatic.
Bruen wasn’t that relevant to this bill. Bruen merely ruled out the state erecting any arbitrary, discretionary bureaucratic obstacles to possessing a firearm. It allows laws motivated by public safety. The Court has recognized that there is a delicate balance between 2nd Amendment freedoms, and the freedom to not be shot by a deranged or criminal citizen (public safety).
and the freedom to not be shot by a deranged or criminal
citizengun (public safety).The leftists version.
Where did you copy this deranged, police state fascist Democrat BullSchiff?:
“Bruen wasn’t that relevant to this bill. Bruen merely ruled out the state erecting any arbitrary, discretionary bureaucratic obstacles to possessing a firearm. It allows laws motivated by public safety.”
Bruen does NOT allow fascist laws that violate the Second Amendment with claims of “public safety”. Bruen said the exact opposite: you can’t keep commie gun laws in force by claiming you’re virtuously doing it for “public safety”.
Copied from the syllabus of the Bruen decision:
The test that the Court set forth in Heller and applies today requires courts to assess whether modern firearms regulations are consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding…
To determine whether a firearm regulation is consistent with the Second Amendment, Heller and McDonald point toward at least two relevant metrics: first, whether modern and historical regulations impose a comparable burden on the right of armed self-defense, and second, whether that regulatory burden is comparably justified. Because “individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right,” these two metrics are “ ‘central’ ” considerations when engaging in an analogical inquiry.
McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767 (quoting Heller, 554 U. S., at 599).
Without lies, deflecting and misrepresentation, you deranged Democrats and your violent Trannies and Antifa terrorists would have nothing.
Gavin Newscum is a filthy, lying, crooked, cheating, slimy pile of adamschitt snake-oil salesman. Never believe a word that comes out of that SOB dirt-bag mouth.
And that’s on a good day…
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
The “Responsible Gun Manufacturing Act,” Assembly Bill 1127, is utterly unconstitutional, as is every infringement of the 2nd Amendment over the past 236 years.
“Goofy Gavin” Newscum et al. are in the mode of insurrection and rebellion and deserving of the full weight and force of the law and the government of the United States.
The judicial branch must have been impeached and convicted for the same long ago.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
2nd Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
“The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.”
The overwhelming singular failure of the American republic rights and freedoms experiment has been voters allowing the continued existence of the vile and violent, seditious DNC and their equally vile members like GeorgeX. The Democrats who blame the chaos they’ve created on the Supreme Court, not themselves: the Court that has given them what they couldn’t get at the ballot box.
The Confederate DNC who have now embraced Marx/Alinsky’s communist strategies since losing the Kluxxer Civil War and now put their fellow communists like Justices Jackson and Sotomayor on SCOTUS, polluting that court in hopes of continuing to get from SCOTUS what voters consistently reject at the ballot box.
And while GeorgeX and other communist Democrats want to blame SCOTUS – at the same time they howl in delight at the actions of Jackson and Sotomayor that they worked so hard to put on SCOTUS.
“If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull—-!”
– W.C. Fields
________________
It is eminently encouraging to discover and know that there is no possible compelling rebuttal to the position that the Federal Reserve Board is unconstitutional.
Professor Turley is such a great and patriotic American; he allows everyone, even the utterly incompetent and wholly unworthy, to enjoy their freedom of speech.
“It is eminently encouraging to discover and know that there is no possible compelling rebuttal to the position that the Federal Reserve Board is unconstitutional.”
Shaken Baby Syndrome and GeorgeX back on public display again.
Is pathetically easy to predict that a self-loving Useless Idiot would think readers at Professor Turley’s blog are interested in his infantile need to deflect from today’s topic in order to introduce the topic HE wants to strut around bloviating about. Hoping someone will engage with that self-loving Useless Idiot through the reassurance of engaging him with rebuttal on his subject to prove he actually exists and that somebody cares that he does.
Which results in that Useless Idiot briefly becoming the actual subject.
An adult would start their own blog in order to control the subject of the day. But of course, before doing that, the same adult would also believe that people would actually follow their scribblings and subscribe to their blog. Which leads to them realizing nobody cares about them or their blog. So instead, they pollute Professor Turley’s blog with off-topic subject matter, because Professor Turley has subscribers and they never could if they created their own blog.
Stay calm. Take your meds. Call 911.
Similarly, consider for a moment: The Federal Reserve Act is irrefutably unconstitutional.
The powers that be, the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, and AINOs), are fully aware of that fact, so much so that they make a specious and sophistic claim that the Federal Reserve Board is an autonomous device of Congress because the Federal Reserve Board is impossibly NOT part of any branch of government, not the legislative, not the executive, and not the judicial.
There is no citable or legal basis for the Federal Reserve Board in the Constitution.
The banking industry is “a [legitimate and] distinct group of productive or profit-making [free] enterprises” that may not be regulated per Article 1, Section 8.
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
Consider for a moment that your obsession with the Fed Reserve is about as off topic to this column as currently Missing In Action Dennis McIntyre and his significant other, Gigi. GeorgeX still shows up to circle the drain with his feeble, sophomoric attempts to blame SCOTUS for the vile, unconstitutional actions of the still existing Kluxxer (and now commie) DNC.
FWIW, I believe that the Shill formerly known as Dennis McInyre has renamed him/her/itself a “X’. I noted a similar refusal to answer a direct yes or no question the other day. That, and the overly long and rambling comments, and the tendency to harp on Republican motes as opposed to Democrat logs.
Floyd, although it is entirely possible that McInliar and X are the same person, the sock puppet known as Svelaz and then George is who became the persona “X”.
I do believe that all of them, as well as Gigi, whis is now the pink anonymous and was previously Natacha, are just schizo identitities of the same imbecile.
The patterns they all follow are just too similar.
You forgot to mention the boogeyman under your bed, and the monsters in your closet.
I am sure they are all same as the other people you mention.
Which is to suggest that I am afraid of these drooling morons? Thanks for showing us your brilliant powers of perception, stooge.
Its spelled “bogeyman”, ya spastic hooked on phonics idiot.
Floyd,
With all due respect, the speech or written patterns by Dennis the Known Liar, Gigi/Natasha the TDS afflicted and the slow and dumb one who has gone by the previous handles of Sleevesszees/George/X are in fact different paid leftists. Then there is the annony moron who is here everyday by his own admission 15 hours a day, M–F.
So, what is the reasonable conclusion any sane and normal person would come to? They are A) truly dedicated, leftist, TDS afflicted, Democrats, B) Paid leftists by the DNC to spread misinformation, disinformation or out right lies.
The correct answer would be: Yes, A and B.
I am afraid you’ve potentially over-simplified it. Yes, they are all distinctly different personas, but that is by design. To give the illuision of numbers.
Notice how they all eventually changed their names multiple times and then ultimately settled on just posting as anonymous. X will even respond to his owns posts as anonymous., which of course Svelaz and George before him did.
The anonymous who vomits childish nonsense like: “I have large hands” is none other than Elvis bug, he is also the rabid dog who hates it when the sock puppets are outed.
Wouldn’t it be nice if one of them got religion and fessed up???
NotReallyaFarmer
You are correct that there is a team operating to disrupt this blog. You are obviously highly intelligent and perceptive to recognize this fact. Your talents are clearly wasted as a farmer, if that is really what you do.
We are a highly trained team paid very handsomely by George Soros and the Chinese Communist Party. We make a huge amount of money doing this.
George and the CCP place the highest priority on disrupting this blog.
Just the other day Xi Jinping called me personally to congratulate me on a great job, and he doubled my salary.
No one was including you. You’re just an idiot with a big mouth.
No one would pay you for your little childish responses to your own setups, or your low brow sarcasm.
So the only question that remains is why its so important to you that upstate not be a farmer and airborne dog not be ex military.
Answer that, then give the phone back to mommy and go clean your room.
The US does not have a long history and tradition of having semiautomatic pistols with a cruciform trigger bar. Thus under SCOTUS precedent banning them is ok.
The US also does not have a long history of First Amendment free speech by way of a mechanism called “the Web”, beginning circa 1993. And Glock pistols with “a cruciform trigger bar” (which you have no idea of what that means), predate the Web and it’s forums, YouTube, Facebook, etc, by decades.
Thus under Democrat Useless Marxist Idiots’ version of SCOTUS precedent, there is a precedent for banning all First Amendment speech by any means provided by the Internet! Democrats will have to return to quill pens and printing presses to spread their lies! And unlike the Second Amendment, the First Amendment does not have a specific clause that says “shall not be infringed”.
What a pathetic attempt at justification, commie!
BTW, historical note to Screwsom and commie Democrats: striker fired pistols like the Glock, are predated by similar pistols going back to the first years of the 1900s. Trigger bars to release an internal striker on a hammerless pistol existed almost a century before Gaston Glock designed his version, the Glock pistol.
Of course, Screwsom and the Democrats know about as much about pistols as they know about American citizens’ rights to freedom and liberty – versus their centralized collectivist beliefs that government should control our lives.
“The US does not have a long history and tradition of having semiautomatic pistols with a polymer stock
cruciform trigger bar.”This statement is 77 years more correct than yours. Do you think Bruen allows banning polymer stocks? Idiot.
Isn’t that because the polymer stock gun is not detectable by a metal detection scanner. It’s a public safety rationale, based on the covert, armed attacker having first-to-kill advantages. Glocks defeat screening checkpoints, leaving the public less safe in public venues.
“Isn’t that because the polymer stock gun is not detectable by a metal detection scanner. Glocks defeat screening checkpoints, leaving the public less safe in public venues.”
Now, is that an example of yet another Biden-sized Democrat outrageous lie? Or another rich example of another Democrat police state fascist publicly showing that they know absolutely nothing whatsoever about firearms in general and even less if possible about The Dreaded Democrat Baby-Killer Glock Pistol?
I wonder how many other normal Americans here today (i.e. not mentally defective Democrat voters) started laughing their asses off when they read that nugget of copied and pasted Democrat politician intelligence?
Aside from everything else, all handguns whether they have polymer parts or not, have at the very least a barrel. For you Democrat Useless Idiots out there: all of those barrels are made of STEEL. Not polymer, not ceramics, not wood – STEEL.
More STEEL than what the TSA has you take off or remove before going through screening at the airport i.e. shoes, watches, pens, keys, etc.
Got anything else to share with us that you brought from Biden/Pelosi/Schumer/AOC when assigned here today?
Wowsa, talk about your all time misreads! I was pointing out the phallacy of his dumb remarks. The barrel isnt polymer, ya douche, and the stock is worthless without it.
“Wowsa, talk about your all time misreads! I was pointing out the phallacy of his dumb remarks.”
Oooohhhh…. “phallacy”! Oh well! Your Biden Birthing Boy mind went straight back to your life’s primary interest… The Phallus!
Tell us: going line by line of what you believe to be your magnificent killer post…which of the three lines in your incredible post we should believe. A simple yes/no answer will suffice:
1. Isn’t that because the polymer stock gun is not detectable by a metal detection scanner. Yes/No?
2. It’s a public safety rationale, based on the covert, armed attacker having first-to-kill advantages. Yes/No?
3. Glocks defeat screening checkpoints, leaving the public less safe in public venues. Yes/No?
You Biden Birthing Boyz so dumb staring back at you in the mirror on the rare occasions that you wash your faces and brush your teeth.
Hey dipshlt, turn your phone sideways so you can see the heirarchy.
I didnt respond to you.
I was calling out the imbecile who claimed polymer guns are invisible. Mine was the original post concerning polymer stocks, showing the ridiculousness of his Bruen argument.
If so, you can’t even do that well. Get some help with your delusions of adequacy.
By your stupid logic Mormons, Unitarians, Jehovah’s Witnesses and many other faiths that came about after the Constitution was ratified do not have First Amendment rights. By your stupid logic, the government can censor TV, Radio, and the Internet because they didn’t exist either.
You are a fool who clearly grasping at straws. But, for the record, the first repeating rifle was invented in 1630 and was used by the Russians, Swedish, and others. The only issue is it was so expensive that just getting a bunch of peasants to shoot each other with primitive muskets was the more economical solution!!!
Are there no sanctions for jurisdictions that pass and seek to enforce clearly unconstitutional laws? Does the Supreme Court have endless patience?
No. Scotus only has jurisdiction to decide individual cases as they arise. See U.S. Const. art. III, Section 2, Clause 1 (the “case or controversy” clause).
The sanction, if you want to call it that, is the published decisions of Scotus that become binding precedent for the whole country. The anti-gun politicians get their brownie points for re-election, fully knowing the precedent will be set against them. Everybody wins.
” Everybody wins.”
I seem to be omitted from “everybody”. I suspect I am not alone. Sooner or later, that phenomenon will have consequences.
In what way have you lost by having Scotus uphold the Second Amendment against constant attacks from totalitarian public officials?
Professor Turley: did your fellow Democrat Newsom state whether or not he is going to order that all California law enforcement entities must surrender their dangerous Glock pistols and convert to another make and model of pistol?
I’m curious about that as similar types of bans attacking other legal firearms purchased and carried by citizens have resulted in some gun manufacturers responding by prohibiting sale of their firearms to police forces in those states.
I have no idea as to whether Glock would respond in the same manner given their law enforcement sales in Newsom’s state. Those owning stock in Glock are unlikely to forego sales in California over a Constitutional issue. They invested to make money, not to make a Constitutional statement.
Glock’s almost certain immediate response will be to wait and see if Newsom’s unconstitutional police state fascist law will survive the inevitable challenge to SCOTUS.
Newscum is Hitler reincarnated. He is a Fascist. The Fascists confiscated weapons, like Democrats.
Perhaps the greatest lie being perpetuated for generations in America is the Democrat claim that “gun control” i.e. infringements on the Second Amendment, successfully reduces crime in America.
In our constitutional states like Montana and Idaho, if you decided to carry a belt fed machine gun down main street with a fully auto machine pistol on each hip like Lara Croft, Tomb Raider, you wouldn’t need so much as a permit from the city.
And yet, those constitutional states don’t even require their citizens to have ANY kind of permit to carry a handgun, open or concealed. And yet, their murder rate is between half of that to a third less than the murder rate of Newsom’s state.
In fact (being as Democrat totalitarian gun banners like to make comparisons to foreign countries as though that is valid), those constitutional states have murder rates no different or lower than the Canadian provinces they border: BC, AB, and SK.
Canadian provinces where Canada’s Leninist Liberals, little mini-me Newsoms, have told Canadians owning any kind of pistol to lock it away to collect dust until they finally think they can get away with coming around to confiscate those handguns they started by ordering being registered with the government.
And that’s precisely what Democrats want: to find a way to ban and confiscate all firearms owned by Americans. They promise they only want to ban “machine gun Glocks”, they promise.
“In our constitutional states like Montana and Idaho, if you decided to carry a belt fed machine gun down main street with a fully auto machine pistol on each hip like Lara Croft, Tomb Raider, you wouldn’t need so much as a permit from the city.”
Sure. Great. In many locations that will get you a bullet to the back of the head and the weapons taken and sold to drug dealers. Theft of guns is one big source of them getting into the hands of teens. From glove boxes, stolen during home break-ins; many times their presence advertised by NRA stickers.
There was a shooting near me where the gunman shot a cop in the head with a small caliber gun, took the semi-automatic weapon from the cop’s holster and then went into a public meeting and killed several more people. One of his intended targets managed to escape by throwing chairs at the gunman; guns not only didn’t stop the attack, they made it more deadly. Chairs saved lives.
As to protection, around 175 guns with 175 cops were unable to protect a small number of children from a single gunman. Or where cops kill the hero who pulled a gun to shoot the bad guys.
Keep telling insane people and criminals that the real answer to all their problems is to get a gun and insane people and criminals will keep getting guns.
“Sure. Great. In many locations that will get you a bullet to the back of the head and the weapons taken and sold to drug dealers.” Where are those “many locations” your insinuations are about, where there are no restrictions on what is termed “Constitutional carry”? That sounds like yet another Democrat lie, where the opposite of that is the reality in states with open carry of anything you want to carry. States like Montana, Idaho, Wyoming.
If that is true, those states with open carry should have murder rates no different than Chicago, Washington DC, etc. Instead of murder rates no different and often lower than the Canadian provinces they border.
So here we have another Democrat Useless Idiot who just got off the short bus for Jerry’s Kids, claiming that open carry without need for any kind of permit will result in bloodbath in the Constitutional states that do not interfere with that.
A bloodbath that will make the Democrat bloodbath going on every day in their gun control utopias like Washington DC, Chicago, etc look like a kindergarten sandbox scuffle in comparison.
The only problem with this is that they can’t provide the truckload of bodies to show how this happens in those states i.e. Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, etc.
What we get instead is this additional fabricated nonsense: “One of his intended targets managed to escape by throwing chairs at the gunman; guns not only didn’t stop the attack, they made it more deadly. Chairs saved lives.”
You’re attempting to ask everyone to believe that those intended victims of the gunman threw CHAIRS instead of drawing their guns? The intended victims WERE carrying those guns you claim do not work, correct?
Any chance that those victims who were at that meeting were prohibited from carrying guns? So they were defenseless in your bullshyte scenario. And in your disarmed victims scenario, the only thing they COULD do to save themselves was try to run or throw chairs to distract the gunman long enough to escape and leave the rest of the unarmed victims alone to face their fate.
We need to ask for better quality Democrat liars to be sent here from now on. This one is so lame he isn’t even amusing.
I’m waiting for Kaklin Kamala to turn her Glock over to the authorities post haste. She will instead claim that her security is more important than your security so she has a right that you don’t have to keep her Glock. Have she and Gavin forgotten that poor black people who live in high crime areas have a right to protect themselves especially when the police won’t come to their call in a timely manner because the police have been defunded by the saviors on high. The whole thing makes them feel so virtuous don’t ya know.
Newsom’s campaign against Glock firearms may or may not aid his dream of being the Democrat nominee for the next presidential election. But I am 100% certain he will not launch his presidential campaign with a vow that if elected president he will try to ban Glock handguns.
If Democrats lost their ability to generate fear and lies, they would have nothing to campaign on. This is reminiscent of the “cop killer bullets” outrage political theater that the Democrats deployed decades ago to reel in their Useful Idiots like Wally here, a perfect reference specimen of the Democrat voter class.
When asked in hearings to provide examples of police who were wounded/killed when a “cop killer bullet” defeated and penetrated their body armor, not a single Democrat including their puke buckets pushing it, Biden, Pelosi, and Schumer, could provide a single example.
“Cop killer bullets” were a lie to manufacture a crisis that did not exist. And to some extent, it did work, including criminals going in search of “cop killer bullets” to use as firearms after Democrats had told their felon identity politics voter group that it would help them murder cops.
To date, as best I know, four decades later, we are awaiting news that a police officer has finally been wounded/murdered by a “cop killer bullet” that defeated their body armor.
I doubt we are ever going to hear of any LEO wounded/murdered by a Glock illegally converted to full auto, despite Newsom and the Democrats staging a party Midol Moment over Glock pistols.
When you have a gun in your hand who worries about the size of your dick needle peter
Absolutely right !!!
Having a gun in your hand is a great way to deal with your insecurities about your size.
Makes you much more of a man than you really are.
“Having a gun in your hand is a great way to deal with your insecurities about your size. Makes you much more of a man than you really are.”
There’s more Democrat Tranny logic for you! Now Democrats claim that real women who are gun owners (as well as an increasingly greater percentage of those carrying a handgun for self defense) are Democrat Trannies who actually want to be more male! Cackles Harris, The DEI Hire and alleged Glock owner, perhaps?
Some people were dropped on their heads as babies. This Democrat Tranny analyst obviously had their head repeatedly swung into the nearest wall… elective birth control abortions are much more effective if done prior to birth.
Be sure to tell that to the next LEO you encounter. Sharing your personal inadequacies online, doesn’t have an impact on normal men.
Women with a gun in their hand, don’t need to have a dick of any size in order not be worried about a Democrat Tranny would-be rapist still retaining their dick of any size.
A Democrat Tranny would-be rapist who would never think for a second of having his dick lopped off to actually physically resemble a real woman.
Only little boys not yet old enough to be capable of being a Democrat Tranny racist should be encouraged to sexually and chemically mutilate themselves on behalf of the Democrat Tranny cause.
BAN FOR LIFE!
1. How is a Glock any different than the scores of other manufacturers of polymer handguns?
2. What problem is being addressed by this law? There is not an epidemic of semis being altered to full auto. This is just a pretext to ban guns.
3. Only an idiot would alter their Glock to full auto, that’s just asking to shoot yourself or another by accident.
John Moses Browning created his first machine gun as a very young man in the 1800s, converting a lever action rifle by adding bits and pieces. In WW2, the allies created a device that when installed on a bolt action military rifle, made it fully automatic.
As for illegally converting Glock semiautomatic pistols to full automatic, the same can be done with every other semiautomatic pistol. While it’s odd that if Newsom truthfully believes doing that makes them more effective, police forces don’t make that conversion, Newsom hopes that if this law sticks he can then ban all semiautomatic pistols.
Gun prohibitions to control law abiding people exercising their constitutional rights is just as much a mark of the totalitarian Democrats as fighting tooth and nail to allow criminal Illegal Aliens to enter and then remain in the USA in violation of US law.
Fully automatic and rapid fire weapons are best for doing the maximum damage to a dense crowd of people. If makes them much more effective for mass shootings when the goal is to injure the maximum number of people.
This is why the gunman in Las Vegas didn’t choose a bolt action rifle to fire into the music event crowd. He managed to kill a much larger number of people than even a semi-automatic that isn’t enhanced to be rapid fire with a bump stock or extensive training to act like a bump stock would do.
The trick is to make the enticement to own such guns, normally useless for law enforcement, hunting, or target shooting, so large and the availability so easy that more mass shootings can take place so gun makers can sales pitch even more guns “for self defense.”
The much vaunted A-10 anti-armor aircraft uses a fully automatic gun, for effectiveness.
Another wacko conspiracy theorist has it all figured out. That pesky Constitution just keeps getting in the way.
“Fully automatic and rapid fire weapons are best for doing the maximum damage to a dense crowd of people.”
Here we have the latest “gun expert” sent here from the Democrat Borg. Been playing Call Of Duty too much while day drinking?
Can you come up with more than one example of “dense crowd of people”? Because that sounds like a careful attempt to Democrat cherrypick just one specific scenario that stands on it’s own over the last 20, 30 years.
There was a recent mass shooting just two weeks ago aimed at near point blank range at crowd on a dock outside of a waterfront bar, no more than 50 yards away. The rifle uses was one of your “rapid fire weapons”, to attempt the spray and pray mass murder of that dense crowd of people. After doing a mag dump at close range into that crowd, the best that murderer could do is three killed for the 31 rounds he fired.
Why didn’t you pick that shooting into a dense crowd of people that happened less than two weeks ago? You don’t want to talk about THAT! You want to ignore that and talk about Las Vegas and Evil Bump Stocks!
“He managed to kill a much larger number of people than even a semi-automatic that isn’t enhanced to be rapid fire with a bump stock or extensive training to act like a bump stock would do.”
I call BS on you, Call Of Duty veteran. If he had instead chosen deliberate aimed fire instead of spray and pray, far, far more people would have been murdered. We should be thankful he bought into the same BS that you’re attempting to sell to readers here.
For the number of shots he fired, the number of shots that missed or only wounded people isn’t much of a recommendation for your careful cherrypicking. Nor is the fact that his template chosen AR-15s with bump stocks added were found jammed, with hundreds of rounds still available and loaded into other magazines. They were unable to fire any more rounds due to the bump stocks making them unreliable and him never thinking to learn how to clear a jammed rifle. They were all so jammed he had to resort to blowing his own brains out with a handgun he also brought with him once he was no longer able to continue firing at the people below.
Think of how many of his intended victims were not shot because that evil murderer was dumb enough to think he’d run up a bigger score if he just mounted bump stocks and did Hollywood spray and pray!
In short, you should be thankful that sicko didn’t simply set up a careful rest and deliberately kill people one after one with deliberate aimed fire, like shooting gophers. Rather than spraying and praying to whatever evil god whose call he was answering.
Or worse: as a psycho who had a pilot’s license and intent on suicide after murdering the maximum amount of people, if he hadn’t simply taken his twin engined aircraft loaded with fuel and dove it right into the middle of that crowd. The number killed if he had simply done that would have been north of 200.
Back to playing Call of Duty, little Bolshevik Birthing Boy.
And while you’re playing that game: in the real world the infantry in battle RARELY gives an order for the troops to use automatic fire with their rifles. Squad and platoon machine gun support weapons, yes; rifles no. In some combat arms units, they go so far as to limit the ability to use automatic fire by issuing weapons that limit the soldier it to three rounds per trigger squeeze.
There’s a reason for that limitation on automatic fire by the professional military. With enough time, you might be able to figure out what it is.
“that can be readily converted by hand or with common household tools”
Surprised they did not ban “common household tools.”
All I can say is good luck with Gov. Newsome! 🙂 🙂 🙂
I have never owned a gun.
I have never fired a gun.
I have never even held a gun in my hands.
And speaking of hands, I do have exceptionally large hands.
Most gun owners buy guns to compensate for their exceptionally small hands.
In fact, the more guns they own, the smaller their hands are likely to be.
So what!
You couldn’t be more wrong, little fella.’
You are a moron.