Federal Judge Blocks California’s “Unconstitutional” Gun Control Law Allowing Gu

[wolfbait]

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/12/federal-judge-blocks-californias-unconstitutional-gun-control-law-allowing-gun-manufacturers-sued-negligence/

[NRA4LIFE]

I hope you realize this is exactly what Newsome wanted.

[KFhunter]

I hope you realize this is exactly what Newsome wanted.

Please explain how  2A right and Texas hesrtbeat law is the same?

It's whataboutism when the two laws, rights and protections are very dissimilar. 


2A = protected by US constitution

Abortion is for states to decide as recently determined by vacating roe v wade ruling. 

The two are not equal or simmilar, even if a bill is written similarly between the two.

Newsome lost, and is pandering to the sheep who don't understand why roe was overturned

[huntnphool]

I hope you realize this is exactly what Newsome wanted.

Please explain how  2A right and Texas hesrtbeat law is the same?

It's whataboutism when the two laws, rights and protections are very dissimilar. 


2A = protected by US constitution

Abortion is for states to decide as recently determined by vacating roe v wade ruling. 

The two are not equal or simmilar, even if a bill is written similarly between the two.

Newsome lost, and is pandering to the sheep who don't understand why roe was overturned

Bingo

[buckfvr]

We are neck deep in sheep in this country/state, and its suffocating us.  The government is causing as much division as they can just hoping we give them a reason to move on to the next phase in their plan.

At some point, its going to come to blows.  Power is control.

[wags]

I hope you realize this is exactly what Newsome wanted.

Not really, Newsome is just grandstanding, he knows they aren't the same.

Quoting the Judge; "the California measure applies to laws affecting a clearly enumerated constitutional right set forth in our nation’s founding documents.”

Abortion is a State issue, not a constitutionally protected right.

[huntnphool]

I hope you realize this is exactly what Newsome wanted.

Not really, Newsome is just grandstanding, he knows they aren't the same.

Quoting the Judge; "the California measure applies to laws affecting a clearly enumerated constitutional right set forth in our nation’s founding documents.”

Abortion is a State issue, not a constitutionally protected right.

  +1

[MADMAX]

I hope you realize this is exactly what Newsome wanted.

Not really, Newsome is just grandstanding, he knows they aren't the same.

Quoting the Judge; "the California measure applies to laws affecting a clearly enumerated constitutional right set forth in our nation’s founding documents.”

Abortion is a State issue, not a constitutionally protected right.

  +1

+2

[bornhunter]

We are neck deep in sheep in this country/state, and its suffocating us.  The government is causing as much division as they can just hoping we give them a reason to move on to the next phase in their plan.

At some point, its going to come to blows.  Power is control.

Exactly why all us sheepdogs  have to stick together!

[salmosalar]

A different perspective:

This court may be the single biggest thread to 2A rights in the long term. In the near term they have expanded the 2A protections from those stated in Heller which overturned the Miller decision as to whether the arms in question were needed for a militia. The current court has broadened the right even more with the NY case.  All of that is fine provided that future courts are unwilling to overturn precedent.

The difference with this court is that they are more willing than any court in history to overturn existing precedent. Overturning Roe V. Wade is one example. It is a rare example of a time where an individual right has been taken away, or interpreted as being more limited than prior courts had held. Given that this court limited the rights conveyed in the 4th, a new court could go back to a pre-Heller view of the 2nd.

In the Dobbs case, the court held that here was no specific right to privacy as it was not specifically stated in the 4th. However in the NY gun control case the court stated that there was a right to bear arms for personal protection, although that is also not specifically stated in the 2nd. We all probably know the 2nd by heart and know that the right of the people to keep and  bear arms is preceded by "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,"   It would be easy for a court to take as narrow an interpretation of the 2nd as this court does the 4th. Miller already did this.  This is especially true given that the guidance that the court has given in determining the validity of gun laws is based on "text, history and tradition". The need for state militias was real in 1791. Their was a very limited standing army. The nations 1st line of defense was state militias. If one were to actually look at the text, history and tradition at the time, it would be easy to value the "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," portion over the "right of the people to keep and bear arms portion" in the same way it views portions of the 1st amendment disproportionately. The point is that if you look at history and tradition, things become far more subjective.

I believe that here will be a few more precedents concerning the establishment clause and equal protection overruled soon. This court has repeatedly signalled that it is dead set on eliminating any and all interpretation of the 1st amendment establishment clause as separating religion from government. The Kennedy decision has shown their willingness to take a broad view of the portion of the 1st that allows for the free exercise of religion as being greater than the reciprocal portion known as the establishment clause. Why is this important? Again, it goes against long standing precedent and it represents an interpretation that favors a portion of one of the amendment over the entirety of the amendment. Like the 2nd amendment the whole can be interpreted quite differently from the parts.

The fear is that if precedent no longer matters then a return to the Miller interpretation of the 2nd amendment may become fair game.

Another threat is that this court could favor Justice Thomas' view that the 14th amendment does not confer the rights outlined in the 1st amendment to the states. He views the 14th very narrowly. He has expressed a belief that the 14th amendment does not keep an individual state from establishing a religion. Gorsuch seems inclined to agree. If the 14th does not require State and Local governments to abide by the 1st amendments establishment clause, it stands to reason that it would not confer any other portion of the Bill of rights onto the states.

Lastly but possibly most importantly, Dobbs v. Jackson is very unpopular as is this court. I think that we all saw with the mid terms, the political ramifications that it brought with it. Add to that a populace who is less and less religious by the day, a court who refuses to acknowledge people freedom from government sponsored religion and you have a court who could make winning national elections far more difficult for 2A candidates. The logic behind Dobbs is also seen as a clear bridge to overturning Obergefell. The exact same reasoning could be used and Alito seemed to hint at that in the decision. Overturning a national right to same sex marriage would be even more unpopular. It seems like it very well could happen even though Obergefell was so recent. 

Many here vote based on 2A alone. I would venture to say that many more people would vote based on overturning Dobbs and reaffirming Obergefell than would ever vote based on 2A. If the SCOTUS continues down the path that they have started on with respect to the establishment clause, Dobbs and Obergefell they may doom 2A in the long run, even if they have been very supportive.

[highside74]

I hope you realize this is exactly what Newsome wanted.

Not really, Newsome is just grandstanding, he knows they aren't the same.

Quoting the Judge; "the California measure applies to laws affecting a clearly enumerated constitutional right set forth in our nation’s founding documents.”

Abortion is a State issue, not a constitutionally protected right.

  +1

+2

+3

[Fidelk]

salmo......thank you for the analysis.

[Fidelk]

2A = protected by US constitution

Abortion is for states to decide as recently determined by vacating roe v wade ruling. 

The 2A is the second right enumerated in the Bill of Rights, so to me, it is a bedrock American right that got on the list early in the process.

Abortion (as sanctioned by Roe v. Wade) is not specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights but became a sort of interpreted right that has now been uninterpreted and cancelled.

What confuses me is if the US Constitution protects the 2A, why are the protections so uneven amongst a variety of States.......California, Hawaii, New York, etc........compared to Idaho, Texas, Arizona, etc.