- Messages
- 8,905
- Reactions
- 31,442
You mean the law abiders. They want people control...nothing more.
JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Other State Federal judge blocks California’s ammo background check law
- Thread Starter User 1234
- Start date
- Messages
- 13,105
- Reactions
- 46,680
Folks don't miss the importance of the message...
"They want people control...nothing more."
Look at us this very moment, they have control, look what they've done to private businesses, how they've closed them and will bankrupt many...
The game is about control of the populace. Period.
- Messages
- 1,587
- Reactions
- 4,211
The weekend's here. Crack open a bottle of beer and celebrate the win.
- Messages
- 976
- Reactions
- 2,599
Apparently, an appeal of the injunction has already been filed by the CA DOJ with the the 9th:
- Messages
- 13,105
- Reactions
- 46,680
That didn't take long. Has anyone checked the water in California, there's got to be lead in the water or something
- Messages
- 8,905
- Reactions
- 31,442
Some politicians need a new set of lead boots.That didn't take long. Has anyone checked the water in California, there's got to be lead in the water or something
- Messages
- 5,466
- Reactions
- 13,723
- Thread Starter
- #67
This case was guaranteed to be heard by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals regardless of who won in the trial court. But now that Trump's appointments have balanced that court the outcome is not predictable.
- Messages
- 976
- Reactions
- 2,599
This is not my strong suit area but I hear it depends on if it goes just to a three judge panel or "en banc" to the full court. The three judge can be more problematic if you draw 2 or 3 libs. The full court is now weighted closer to an even split with the "Ds" still having a slight majority.
- Messages
- 18,744
- Reactions
- 45,460
- Messages
- 976
- Reactions
- 2,599
- Messages
- 9,490
- Reactions
- 21,467
Not applicable in the context of the discussion in THIS thread.
This thread is in regards to the injunction around ammunition background checks in the State of California.
With background checks, folks cannot have ammunition shipped to homes. Companies simply will not ship. Forced compliance.
Due to the injunction, what this thread is discussing, companies ARE shipping ammunition to homes directly.
- Messages
- 31
- Reactions
- 27
The fact that we have background checks at all is the problem. Shall not be infringed means everything to me.
- Messages
- 9,490
- Reactions
- 21,467
However they did, and likely will again shortly, now that the reversal paperwork is filed.
- Messages
- 6,824
- Reactions
- 17,613
That didn't take long. Has anyone checked the water in California, there's got to be lead in the water or something
THC actually
- Messages
- 6,824
- Reactions
- 17,613
Well then you should be glad this case got filed and the plaintiffs won the first stage. This is the process laid out in the Constitution for these exact questions.
- Messages
- 18,744
- Reactions
- 45,460
Sound like you should be refreshing the tree of liberty.
- Messages
- 5,466
- Reactions
- 13,723
- Thread Starter
- #77
I agree with Awshoot that Judge Benitez is angling for a strict "hardware test" which is the closest to an actual "shall not be infringed" standard that we can realistically hope for. Strict scrutiny would be 99% as good for us. "Strict in theory, fatal in fact." Very few laws survive strict scrutiny. The 2A specifies a "shall not be infringed" standard where other rights (right against searches and seizures) specifies only a bar against "unreasonable" government actions. The 2A should be enforced accordingly when confronted by a popular vote by anti-freedom voters.
I actually used to live in California ... Can you spell "fool"?
- Messages
- 976
- Reactions
- 2,599
Danger, Will Robinson... and Ura-Ki
Similar threads
