Posted on 06/26/2025 4:19:25 AM PDT by TheDon
Once again federal courts have blasted holes in attempts to restrict the Second Amendment “right to keep and bear arms.”
On June 20, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in its own summary, “held that California’s ‘one-gun-a-month’ law… facially violates the Second Amendment.”
That’s “because the plain text … protects against meaningful constraints on the acquisition of firearms through purchase.”
“This is a huge victory,” Sam Paredes told us; he’s the executive director of Gun Owners of California, which filed an amicus brief for the plaintiff in the case, Nguyen v. Bonta; Rob Bonta is California’s attorney general. Paredes compared such restrictions to saying the First Amendment allows restricting journalists to one article a month, or limiting going to church to once a month.
The court panel specifically cited the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, which upheld the personal right to carry a concealed gun. The decision also noted how, after the Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment and Reconstruction tried to stop the Southern states from restricting the Second Amendment rights of the newly freed black slaves.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at ocregister.com ...
A victory, to be certain. The law was a perfect example of just how shallow and infantile the ‘thinking’ of our legislators really is: “Nobody needs to buy more than one gun a month, right?” “Right! Why would they need to do that? Gun Nuts!” “Let’s make it a law, then. It’s reasonable, right, one gun a month. Who could be against THAT?” “Gun Nuts!!” “Yeah! Let’s DO this!” And here we are. Idiots. And they govern us.
I hated that law.Who would pass a law that said I had to buy a gun every 30 days?
I was going broke!
;0)
You really need to read the highly suppressed and now out of print 1982 Senate report on the RKBA. I have a paper copy from the US Government printing office.
Here is an on line copy.
https://guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt.html
“The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.”
19th century cases
16. * Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878).
“If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the (p.17)penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.”
17. * Jennings v. State, 5 Tex. Crim. App. 298, at 300-01 (1878).
“We believe that portion of the act which provides that, in case of conviction, the defendant shall forfeit to the county the weapon or weapons so found on or about his person is not within the scope of legislative authority. * * * One of his most sacred rights is that of having arms for his own defence and that of the State. This right is one of the surest safeguards of liberty and self-preservation.”
18. * Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. 165, 8 Am. Rep. 8, at 17 (1871).
“The passage from Story (Joseph Story: Comments on the Constitution) shows clearly that this right was intended, as we have maintained in this opinion, and was guaranteed to and to be exercised and enjoyed by the citizen as such, and not by him as a soldier, or in defense solely of his political rights.”
19. * Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846).
“’The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State.”
And the SCOTUS case that led to the Civil War..
Are Negros citizens...Dred Scott
“It would give to persons of the negro race, who are recognized as citizens in any one state of the Union, the right to enter every other state, whenever they pleased.... and it would give them full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might meet; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to KEEP AND CARRY ARMS wherever they went.”
Paragraph 77 in the link below.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0060_0393_ZO.html
But, will not make a damned bit of difference out thisaway in CaCaLand. Gov’mt has numerous 2nd amendment violations in place; e.g., you cannot buy a gun they do not approve ahead of time. Period. Gov’mt maintains a list and you cannot buy anything off that list even if you try thru an out-of-state seller thru an in-state FFL. I’ve tried.
No non-CaCaLand authority bothers to enforce its rulings in this state. The state will simply ignore. Been doing it for decades, on everything. Until some start going to jail, nothing will improve. It is persons that are violating the laws, with impunity ‘cause they are rich/celebrities. Until that ends with some examples there is no good news.
“If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the (p.17)penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.”
= = =
Oh, I really like this part.
But, I can read and understand English, as written — not today’s ‘dialect’.
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.