Store clerk shoots 2 would-be robbers in southwest Houston

"...then you also have the California Supreme Court:"

As is common with single issue advocacy sites, of all persuasions, they are misunderstanding or misrepresenting the text they write about. It's all over excited silliness.

In the decision quoted the court was addressing a particular claim by one of the parties about a particular passage in the California constitution. The court, correctly, noted that the passage did not contain a right to bear arms. That's all. It says nothing about not recognizing the federal 2nd Amendment. That wasn't the question being addressed. That passage said nothing about the ultimate result of the case even. It was focused on a very narrow point. The author of the article took that and blew it up into something else. As I said, you must read these things with some skepticism.

"If anyone thinks that the US Constitution’s 2A will always matter to Scotus..."

And you can say that about literally anything. So what? This thread was about an incident of someone fighting off robbers. You are ranting on some tangent. I really don't know what your point is anymore.

The article was about someone fighting off robbers...

WITH A GUN and continuing TO SHOOT while the robbers WERE FLEEING. That’s the issue I was addressing, which was RIGHT ON TOPIC.

You said many other states have provisions similar to California’s, but I countered that the other states’ provisions are written from the perspective that the right to keep and bear arms is foundational to those states’ constitutions, which it is. The California provisions are CLEARLY written and structured from the perspective that RKBA is NOT foundational to the California Constitution, which is abundantly evident from the fact that guns are illegal, except, except, except, which is unique to California and is tantamount to the law GRANTING the right as opposed to other states assuming the God-given right and then creating regulations to limit the unfettered exercise of those rights. Take away those other states’ regulations and you have gun right in those states through their constitutions. Repeal the EXCEPTIONS to California’s “no guns” laws and you have no gun rights.

Then you faked left by saying the the California Supreme Court decision did not hinge on no constitutional provision of the right to keep and bear, but here’s the money quote from the decision for you (hint: it’s straight from the wording of the decision):

“If plaintiffs are implying that a right to bear arms is one of the rights recognized in the California Constitutions declaration of rights, they are simply wrong. No mention is made in it of a right to bear arms.”

See? The CA Supreme court is EXPLICITLY STATING that California has NO RKBA in its Constitution. That was the BASIS for their overturning a lower court decision that found the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act unconstitutional BECAUSE, the CA Supreme Court said, that California does not have RKBA in its Constitution. That is the operative finding in the California Supreme Court, THE ADJUDICATOR OF CA LAWS. No gun rights in the CA Constitution is the reason for the Supremes’ ACWA decision and for the exceptions-only basis for any ability of anyone to keep and bear arms in California. Now maybe they fear being overturned by Scotus, but once that is dealt with by a super-lib Scotus, there is no reason why California won’t start removing what is really just exceptions to the no-gun tack of California gun laws, based on the no-gun California State Constitution and backed-up by no-gun findings of the California State Supreme Court!

Have I said it clearly enough?

"See? The CA Supreme court is EXPLICITLY STATING that California has NO RKBA in its Constitution. That was the BASIS for their overturning a lower court decision that found the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act unconstitutional BECAUSE, the CA Supreme Court said, that California does not have RKBA in its Constitution..."

As I've already explained, this is incorrect. The "money quote" isn't explaining the basis for any decision. It's a passage responding to one specific argument put forth by one side, that the California constitution included a right to bear arms. The court simply responded to that, saying it doesn't. Which is true. It did not say that fact was the basis for any final decision, it's just one quote pulled out of a larger written decision.

It remains a fact that whether the California constitution contains an explicit right to bear arms or not, the federal one does, and applies in California. Whatever the actual basis for that decision was, it was not that.

And still, I don't know what that all has to do with what happened in this attempted robbery.

I see with a high degree of certainty that you are not
serious.

For instance, you say use of guns in the article has
nothing to do with a discussion of RKBA.

Sorry, it’s useless to me to have a discussion with
someone who won’t see the obvious, like California
NOT having State RKBA as per the clear wording of a
California Supreme Court decision and the structure
of California gun laws.

Adios, troll:

What is it you have against particle physicists?

“More unsettling of settled science.”

No. Not really.

If everything is cheap so it the fantastic little machine. It’s just another thing.

It would have been the same result. The issue wasn’t that they didn’t service a gay wedding. It was that they didn’t service gay customers. The business happened to be one that serviced weddings and the cake was for a wedding, but it wasn’t that it was a wedding that got them into trouble.

“What, are you an apologist for Brad Avarkian? The bakers did not refuse to sell cakes to “gay” customers as such, but only refused to cater a “gay” wedding.”

Not sure what distinction you think that is but the legal problem the baker got into stems from anti-discrimination laws. If anything compels one to make gay wedding cakes, it’s those. Not the Supreme Court decision. That’s what I’m explaining.

And on, and on, and on!

"For instance, you say use of guns in the article has nothing to do with a discussion of RKBA."

Nothing in the article put the right to keep and bear arms into question. That had nothing to do with the events. If you somehow think any mention of a gun should prompt a rant about the 2nd Amendment, then I'm afraid it's you who aren't serious.

As for your other quotes, once I again I don't get your point. What I said in those other threads was correct and was worth saying. So?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.