Other State CA judges finds PMF's not protected by the 2A

[Yarome]

Only in Kalifederation....

A judge did not grant an injunction againt the "ghost gun" ban in CA, but why... is the truly disturbing part.

His finding, under Bruen, is that the specific text of the 2A does not apply in that case. The 2A does not specifically provide protections for individuals to buy, acquire or build firearms. Only the right to keep and bear them.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.861550/gov.uscourts.cacd.861550.19.0.pdf

And....GO!!

Read More

 

[ma96782]

WAIT, Wait, wait.......
Was it BECAUSE????

Even way back then, Gunsmiths.......
Were required to have a license?
And, were required to stamp their production of arms with serial numbers?

Aloha, Mark

 

[Yarome]

What do you want to bet we'll be seeing that argument popping up again in all the other woketard states? "You can have em, you just can't buy, or otherwise, aquire them."

Derrrr...uh.... Kind of a whole new level of woke stupidity.

 

[CamoDeafie]

From Militia Act 1792...

Militia Act of 1792

The Militia Act of 1792 allowed the President to temporarily take control of state militias in times of crises. This was later expanded in 1795, permanently allowing the President to call out the militia. Transcript: Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the...

www.mountvernon.org

"That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes."

Well gee, how is one supposed to "provide himself" with the arms and ammunition if he can't buy or make them?

 

[Yarome]

Well gee, how is one supposed to "provide himself" with the arms and ammunition if he can't buy or make them?

It's utter idiocy... I know. Just another example of the woke trying to do a reach around and distort the SCOTUS ruling in their favor.... "by any means". Kind of like a child teasing another with their finger, "I'm not touching you.... I'm not touching you...".

The 2A doesn't say you can aquire one so it's not a protected right. 2A defense - Dismissed!

There have been numerous cases that have already determined that "aquiring" a firearm is an implied protection under the 2A and pre-requisite to "bear arms".

 

[CamoDeafie]

If the 2A doesn't say you have right to buy or make, then the State must provide everything to citizens without restrictions, for the asking

Edit. Keep and bear arms, for militia and self defense.. okay, cool, taxpayer funded arms should then be freely available to the American citizen for the asking... such as M4s, M16s, M240s, M249s, M79s, M203s, M2HB, Javelins, AT4s, M72 LAWs, and so forth

 

[Stomper]

Only in Kalifederation....

A judge did not grant an injunction againt the "ghost gun" ban in CA, but why... is the truly disturbing part.

His finding, under Bruen, is that the specific text of the 2A does not apply in that case. The 2A does not specifically provide protections for individuals to buy, acquire or build firearms. Only the right to keep and bear them.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.861550/gov.uscourts.cacd.861550.19.0.pdf

View attachment 1297954

And....GO!!

The ignorant beatch wearing black robes is CLEARLY disregarding established precedent that access to the materials, and equipment, and the materials and equipment in and of themselves are indeed protected under the auspices of the 2A…. so his ruling is relegated to his NUCKING personal SHEITE FILLED…. opinion.


Next!

 

[wired]

What do you want to bet we'll be seeing that argument popping up again in all the other woketard states? "You can have em, you just can't buy, or otherwise, aquire them."

Derrrr...uh.... Kind of a whole new level of woke stupidity.

For many years in Washington you could buy silencers but you couldn't use them. Had the Cowlitz County Sherriff tell me to my face that he would not only deny my form 4 application but that if I found a way around his signature ( I did ) that he would instruct his deputies to look for powder residue in my silencer if I was found with one and if so I would be jailed.

Then you could build SBR's but you couldn't buy one.

 

[Alexx1401]

Only in Kalifederation....

A judge did not grant an injunction againt the "ghost gun" ban in CA, but why... is the truly disturbing part.

His finding, under Bruen, is that the specific text of the 2A does not apply in that case. The 2A does not specifically provide protections for individuals to buy, acquire or build firearms. Only the right to keep and bear them.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.861550/gov.uscourts.cacd.861550.19.0.pdf

View attachment 1297954

And....GO!!

I have said for a LONG time, rights and the rule of law mean nothing. They only mean what someone in a black robes says they mean. A LOT of people wearing those robes are flat out dictators who would if they could rule by force. Its why I have long said we can't rely on the courts to fix the stupid things law makers do when gun owners refuse to participate, or worse yet support the law makers hosing us. I am hoping maybe we will see some people wake up this Tuesday.

 

[Ura-Ki]

There are currently Two cases that directly contradict the O.P.s findings, one challenges the so called Ghost Gun argument, stating the nations historical traditional of home made firearms is historically accepted analog in this case, protected under the 2nd! The second case challenges the Serialization of firearms, and again, there is no historical analog that supports the laws governing firearms in any capacity! Both those cases Will prevail using the correct analogues re-affirmed in Bruen!
The third case involving this obliquely is the Binchinci v frosh, and while it doesn't address this topic specifically, it correctly points to the concept that Any and All Bearable Instruments that can be used for self defense ARE protected under the 2nd, which would include Knives and any other instruments that are bearable! It further states that the 2nd correctly recognizes modern weapons as protected under the same analogs!

Times they are a changin!!!

 

[Ura-Ki]

There is also another 2nd case in the south where a Justice directly challenges Thomas's opinion in Bruen, contradicting what SCOTUS points out, he is insisting that the rulings MUST require a historian to examine any restrictions of the past, and that judges are not equipped to take on such burdens! He argues that 2nd rulings must require a full historical examination before any rulings can be handed down! While it's nothing but a stall tactic and an oblique stab at SCOTUS's authority, what it does is settle the major question: what, if any historical restrictions existed at the time of the 2nd's ratification, so, beyond this justices narrow minded point of view, what he is actually doing is setting himself up for a major arse kicking, by insisting in a deep historical search of any restrictions, he is answering the major question, that there is no historical analog of anti 2nd restrictions, period! Basically, his case will be ether reversed and SCOTUS will answer the major Question, or they remand it back with the instructions to "Find it yourself"

 

[CamoDeafie]

There is also another 2nd case in the south where a Justice directly challenges Thomas's opinion in Bruen, contradicting what SCOTUS points out, he is insisting that the rulings MUST require a historian to examine any restrictions of the past, and that judges are not equipped to take in such burdens! He argues that 2nd rulings must require a full historical examination before any rulings can be handed down! While it's nothing but a stall tactic and an oblique stab at SCOTUS's authority, what it does is settle the major question: what if any historical restrictions existed at the time of the 2nd's ratification, so, beyond this justices narrow point of view, what he is actually doing is setting himself up for a major arse kicking, by insisting in a deep historical search of any restrictions, he is answering the major question, that there is no historical analog of anti 2nd restrictions, period! Basically, his case will be ether reversed and SCOTUS will answer the major Question, or they remand it back with the instructions to "Find it yourself"

Lawyer points out that it is the job of the judge to study the history of case law and precedents to apply the Constitution to current cases and to use historical research to determine how to apply the Constitution to current cases

 

[Ura-Ki]

Lawyer points out that it is the job of the judge to study the history of case law and precedents to apply the Constitution to current cases and to use historical research to determine how to apply the Constitution to current cases

Exactly, and because there IS NO HISTORY of infringements or restrictions, that job should be pretty damn simple for even the weak minded Judge to undertake! As I said, it's nothing but a stall tactic, and an oblique shot at the SCOTUS, such as when Merck Garland said he disagreed with the Bruen decision, because he wants the 2 step interest balancing vs restriction standard which makes any challenges easy to deny!

 

[Unicykle]

Maybe I look at things to simply but "shall not be infringed" is also part of the second amendment and if they're telling us we're allowed to have them and bear them but they're denying us the ability to buy them that's infringement to me

 

[ma96782]

Lawyer points out that it is the job of the judge to study the history of case law and precedents to apply the Constitution to current cases and to use historical research to determine how to apply the Constitution to current cases

Doesn't feel competent enough.

Hummm........like how Judge Kitanji Brown Jackson could NOT tell the Senate Judicial Committee what's a woman?

Aloha, Mark

 

[bradsteen]

Only in Kalifederation....

A judge did not grant an injunction againt the "ghost gun" ban in CA, but why... is the truly disturbing part.

His finding, under Bruen, is that the specific text of the 2A does not apply in that case. The 2A does not specifically provide protections for individuals to buy, acquire or build firearms. Only the right to keep and bear them.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.861550/gov.uscourts.cacd.861550.19.0.pdf

View attachment 1297954

And....GO!!

Well, since one cannot "keep and bear" without acquiring, buying, or building, the title of this should really be:

"CA judge proves he is a complete idiot."

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Overruled in 3..2..1...

 

[bcp]

Wouldn't making a firearm be covered by freedom of assembly?



Bruce