Posted on 01/14/2024 6:28:05 AM PST by Twotone
California Gov. Gavin Newsom thinks the Constitution should be amended to accommodate the gun regulations he favors. But in the meantime, he is trying out a different strategy: If we ignore the Second Amendment, maybe it will go away.
In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right to carry guns in public for self-defense, saying states could not require residents to demonstrate a "special need" before allowing them to exercise that right. Newsom responded to what he called a "very bad ruling" by backing a new law that makes carry permits easier to obtain but nearly impossible to use.
Senate Bill 2 bans guns from 26 categories of "sensitive places," including parks, playgrounds, zoos, libraries, museums, banks, hospitals, houses of worship, public transportation, stadiums, athletic facilities, casinos, bars, and restaurants that serve alcohol. The list also covers any "privately owned commercial establishment that is open to the public" unless the owner "clearly and conspicuously posts a sign at the entrance" saying guns are allowed.
S.B. 2 "turns nearly every public place in California into a 'sensitive place,' effectively abolishing the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding and exceptionally qualified citizens to be armed and to defend themselves in public," U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney noted last month, when he issued a preliminary injunction barring California from enforcing many of the law's provisions. "California will not allow concealed carry permitholders to effectively practice what the Second Amendment promises. SB2's coverage is sweeping, repugnant to the Second Amendment, and openly defiant of the Supreme Court."
Carney's response to May v. Bonta, a lawsuit challenging S.B. 2, was not surprising. New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and Hawaii have attempted similar end runs around the Supreme Court's decision, provoking lawsuits that in each case resulted in a court order blocking at least some of the challenged restrictions.
Undeterred by those warnings, Newsom and his legislative allies are hoping that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which historically has been highly sympathetic to gun control, will bless their blatant trickery. On Saturday, the appeals court dissolved an administrative stay that briefly blocked Carney's injunction, which means the new gun-free zones are on hold until it decides the case.
California has the burden of showing that each of its location-specific gun bans is "consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation"—the test that the Supreme Court has said gun control laws must pass. But even without a detailed analysis, the overall impact of the state's new rules is plainly inconsistent with the right recognized by the Supreme Court.
Under S.B. 2, the plaintiffs in May v. Bonta note, "Californians who desire to exercise their enumerated right to carry are essentially limited to some streets and sidewalks (so long as those public places are not adjacent to certain other 'sensitive' places), plus a few businesses willing to post a 'guns allowed' sign at the risk of potentially losing other customers by doing so." The law "creates a patchwork quilt of locations where Second Amendment rights may and may not be exercised, thus making exercise of the right so impractical and legally risky in practice that ordinary citizens will be deterred from even attempting to exercise their rights in the first place."
That, of course, is the whole idea. S.B. 2 itself notes that restricting the discretion of licensing officials, as the Supreme Court's ruling required California to do, could have opened the door to "broadly allowing individuals to carry firearms in most public areas." Deeming that outcome intolerable, legislators instead decreed that guns may not be carried in most public areas.
At the press conference announcing the introduction of S.B. 2, the complaint in May v. Bonta notes, Newsom "used air quotes when discussing the 'right' to carry firearms outside the home, making his contempt for the Constitution clear." Newsom might as well have held up a single finger, aimed directly at the Supreme Court.
The Biden has taught him well:
“How Biden forgives student debt despite the Supreme Court ruling”
Make the “DippityDoDweeb” give up his armed security.
Elected representative TOTALITARIAN has adequate protection.
GOVERNMENT v citizen/subject/slave.
That should read Insurrectionist Governor Gavin Newsom.
Gee Gavin, who’s the dictator now!
No?
Then his Lordship should shut his face.
Until there are personal repercussions for repeatedly violating citizen’s Constitutional rights, those such as Newsom will continue to do so. Who is going to stop him? Who is going to stop the democrat mayors and governors and states reps who continue to institute rules or pass legislation that is unconstitutional?
Lawsuits take years to wind there way through the courts while the illegal laws remain in effect. We need criminal penalties and jail time for these offenses.
At a certain point, if someone is flouting the law, the law has measures beyond lawsuits.
the powers that be will keep pushing the American citizen until there’s either capitulation or rebellion because THEY understand that either is their stepping stone to making ALL Americans their footstool. capitulation...they take your guns. armed rebellion...they take your guns. the Constitution means nothing if it’s not followed and enforced but they now own the enforcement arm so what will YOU, the American citizen do to stop them? plain and simple fact is YOUR government that YOU voted for WILL disarm ANYONE who stands against them. period. remember friends, “it takes guns to take guns”. how ironic is that?
California is no longer America
California resigned
Here is my constitutional right friendo Newsome:
§ 4. Individual right to bear arms; armies. A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, for lawful hunting and recreational use, and for any other lawful purpose; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.
***Senate Bill 2 bans guns from 26 categories of “sensitive places,”***
In 1857, the SCOTUS declared that one of the rights of CITIZENS was “to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”
Dred Scott Decision. it considered blacks to NOT be citizens and had no such rights.
as soon as slick gives up his armed protection we can talk.
Several blue states have enacted Bruen temper tantrum laws that hey know full well violate the Supreme Court’s rulings in Heller, McDonald and Bruen.
There is a precedent for dealing with this. There is court precedent to deal with various states that try to ignore the Supremacy Clause and deny American citizens their constitutional rights in defiance of the Supreme Court.
Its called pre clearance. When the court finds that various states have enacted laws in bad faith....laws that they knew violated the constitution....to deny Americans their constitutional rights, the SCOTUS has required those states to get pre clearance from the federal courts in order to enact ANY laws or regulations AT ALL. In other words, they abused their power so they lose their power. That’s exactly what needs to happen here. California, Hawaii, Maryland, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York and others need to have pre clearance imposed upon them with respect to ANY law that touches or concerns 2nd amendment rights.
bttt
Preclearance...I’ve never heard the term before. Does the Supreme Court have to initiate that itself? Or is there something citizens can do?
Newsom is a public danger far greater than all the 100 million firearms in the once-great state of Californication that he’s ruining
SCOTUS should slap these States down the same way they did southern states who were fighting the Civil Rights Act.
Simply forbid them from passing any more gun control laws without prior permission from the Court.
L
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.