California Sent Spinning By Federal Judge He Just Overturned Their Liberal 2nd Amendment Ban

Democrats for years have enjoyed a kind of super-majority in the state of California.

Golden State has been run for decades by far-left liberals. And they use the state as a sort of guinea pig for their socialist agenda.

You can count on California Democrats to push universal health care, extreme voting “reform,” and anything that rewards criminals or non-citizens.

Of course, that includes strict gun control. But after thirty years, a federal judge just struck down one of their harshest laws.

From Reuters:

A U.S. federal judge overturned California’s 32-year-old ban on assault weapons on Friday, describing it as a “failed experiment” and prompting scathing criticism from the state’s governor and attorney general…

“Government is not free to impose its own new policy choices on American citizens where Constitutional rights are concerned,” the order added.

“It is declared that these statutes unconstitutionally infringe the Second Amendment rights of California citizens,” the court filing concluded.

Federal judge overturned CA’s assault weapons ban, saying it was a failed experiment. The judge rebuked the state’s gun control activists, saying the government has no right to impose policy “where Constitutional rights are concerned.”

Meaning, the state cannot infringe on residents’ Second Amendment rights.

This spells big trouble for Joe Biden’s gun control agenda. Sleepy Joe previously called on Congress to pass sweeping gun control.

TRENDING : Trump Launching Speaking Tour With Bill O’Reilly

One of his biggest demands? Banning “assault weapons.”

But if a federal judge has just criticized, mocked, and overturned California’s assault weapons ban, it will make Joe’s plan look foolish.

After all, what Biden wants for the whole country was going on in CA for decades. And it didn’t stop violent crime from occurring.

6 COMMENTS

    I do believe that a foreclosures can have a significant effect on the client’s life. House foreclosures can have a 8 to a decade negative effects on a client’s credit report. Any borrower who’s applied for a home loan or just about any loans for instance, knows that the particular worse credit rating can be, the more hard it is to acquire a decent bank loan. In addition, it could possibly affect a borrower’s power to find a reasonable place to lease or rent, if that becomes the alternative real estate solution. Interesting blog post.

    What I have usually told folks is that while searching for a good online electronics store, there are a few variables that you have to take into account. First and foremost, you want to make sure to discover a reputable and reliable shop that has received great reviews and scores from other consumers and business world leaders. This will make certain you are handling a well-known store that delivers good program and assistance to its patrons. Thank you for sharing your notions on this website.

    You actually make it appear so easy together with your presentation however I in finding
    this topic to be really something that I feel
    I might never understand. It sort of feels too complicated and very broad
    for me. I’m taking a look ahead for your subsequent put up,
    I will attempt to get the dangle of it!

    In light of the recent ruling (6/4/21 ) by Federal judge Roger Benitez overturning a California firearms ban on assault weapons where he ruled it violates the Constitutional right to bear arms, his words, referring to the Second Amendment, I have a suggestion. In my thesis regarding the Second Amendment I think it will prove his ruling “..right to bear arms” has everything to do with a “militia” and nothing to do with a “person” or individual, which the following will suggest..

    In some 225 years neither law professors, academic scholars, teachers, students, lawyers or congressional legislators after much debate have not been able to satisfactorily explain or demonstrate the Framers intended purpose of Second Amendment of the Constitution. I had taken up that challenge allowing  Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s dilemma to understand the true intent of the Second Amendment.

    I will relate further by demonstration, the intent of the Framers, my understanding using the associated wording to explain. The Second Amendment states, “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.”

    Militia, a body of citizens organized for military service.

    If, as some may argue, the Second Amendment’s “militia” meaning is that every person has a right to keep and bear arms, the only way to describe ones right as a private individual is not as a “militia” but as a “person.” (The individual personality of a human being: self)

    The 4th Amendment reminds us, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons….”

    The Article of Confederation lists eleven (11) references to“person/s.” The Constitution lists “person” or “persons” 49 times to explicitly describe, clarify and mandate a constitutional legal standing as to a “person” his or her constitutional duty and rights, what he or she can do or not do.

    It’s not enough to just say “person/s” is mentioned in the United States Constitution 49 times, but to see it for yourself (forgo listing), and the realization was for the concern envisioned by the Framers that every person be secure in these rights explicitly spelled out, referenced and understood how these rights were to be applied to that “person.”

    Whereas, in the Second Amendment any reference to “person” is not to be found. Was there a reason? Which leaves the obvious question, why did the Framers use the noun “person/s” as liberally as they did throughout the Constitution 49 times and not apply this understanding to explicitly convey the same legal standard in defining an individual “persons” right to bear arms as a person?

    Justice Amy Coney Barrett dissent in Barr v Kanter (2019) Second Amendment argument acquiesced to 42 references to “person/s, of which 13 characterize either a gun or firearm. Her Second Amendment, “textualism” approach having zero reference to “person/s. Justice Barrett’s  view only recognizes “person/s” in Barr, as well in her many other 7th circuit rulings. It is her refusal to acknowledge, recognize or connect the U.S. Constitution benchmark legislative interpretive precept language of “person/s,” mandated in our Constitution 49 times, to the Second Amendment.
     
    Leaving Supreme Court Justice Barrett’s judgment in question.

    In the entire U.S. Constitution “militia” is mentioned 5 times. In these references there is no mention of “person” or “persons.” One reference to “people” in the Second Amendment. People, meaning not a person but persons in describing militia.

    Now comes the word “shall” mentioned in the Constitution 100 times. SHALL; ought to, must ..

    And interestingly, the word “shall” appears in the Second Amendment. “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and shall not be infringed.”

    “[S]hall not be infringed.” Adding another word “infringed” to clarify any misunderstanding as to the intent of the Second Amendment. Infringe. To encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another;

    The condition “Infringe” has put a stop as to any counter thoughts regarding the Second Amendment, as you shall  not infringe or encroach  on beliefs other to what is evident as to the subject “Militia.”

    Finally, clarifying “..the right of the people to keep and bear arms…
    People. Human beings making up a group or assembly or linked by a common interest.

    In closing, I am not against guns, everybody has them. I’m against using the Second Amendment illogically as a crutch. If it makes those feel better so be it. Just what it deserves, use it with a wink.

    William Heino Sr.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.