posh-goofiness
Well-known member
No. It costs him nothing to admit something like this. While he gets brownie points about seemingly getting a clue, he'll stick push his shit in other ways. It's just a smokescreen.
Shhhhh. Let me have this damnit.No. It costs him nothing to admit something like this. While he gets brownie points about seemingly getting a clue, he'll stick push his shit in other ways. It's just a smokescreen.
I said shhh damnit!Called it.
You earned your I told you so.Called it.
It appears to be scripted. Multiple liberal posters suddenly threw down near-identical "No health exemption in the constitution" posts. The suspicion is that this got so much backlash so fast they're doing damage control now and throwing the NM Governor to the wolves.
Notable that Matt Gaetz predicted "Guns as a Health Issue" a few months ago.
Someone in the DNC cottoned on to how this law could be Uno reversed.
That isn't the doom scenario. What they are afraid of is someone having the balls to declare a pedophilia emergency and start rounding up school teachers.Yeah... someone on the left realized how bad this logic could backfire on them if they tried to support it and they're backtracking like crazy.
I don't think so. I think this is a big ask, where they try to do something egregious then present something they want under cover of seeming like they're reasonable.Imagine using this logic on abortion:
Republican governor:
"There's a public health emergency and thus I'm shutting down all abortion clinics."
"What's the public health emergency?"
"Babies are DYING."
Yeah... someone on the left realized how bad this logic could backfire on them if they tried to support it and they're backtracking like crazy.
That only works when you keep those big asks reasonable and rare but the Dems have basically used up any and all good will on the two a front decades ago.I don't think so. I think this is a big ask, where they try to do something egregious then present something they want under cover of seeming like they're reasonable.
Article: LEGAL ALERT: Ninth Circuit rules that California's minor firearm advertising law likely violates the constitution, saying "the First Amendment demands more than good intentions and wishful thinking to warrant the government's muzzling of speech."
Article: "California cannot straitjacket the First Amendment by, on the one hand, allowing minors to possess and use firearms and then, on the other hand, banning truthful advertisements about that lawful use of firearms."
Article: "And bizarrely, California's law would likely ban advertisements promoting safer guns for minors— for example, a hunting rifle designed for young hunters that has less recoil or that comes with a more secure trigger safety—if they are directed at minors and their parents."
Article: Judge VanDyke: "...the legislative record indicates an intention that the law will stop the message that minors should lawfully use firearms, and a hope that the law will prevent minors from eventually becoming adults who have a favorable view of gun ownership and use."
Article: LEGAL ALERT:
A Federal Court has determined California's Standard Capacity Magazine Ban is unconstitutional & ordered enforcement to be halted.
However, the Court delayed enforcement of the order for ten days to allow the State time to file an appeal with the Ninth Circuit.
Article: This means the ban is officially ruled unconstitutional by a Federal Court, but enforcement of the ban has yet to be stopped.
California will appeal and request the Ninth Circuit extend the 10-day delay to leave the ban in place during their appeal.
Article: You can read the Court's decision here:
Article: Alright, a highlights thread of Benitez's ruling in Duncan.
He comes out swinging against the Newsoms of the world, correctly noting his job is to enforce the law, not to fear public criticism.
Article: This was one of the point we raised in our arguments when California kept trying to set 10 as some magical line. Different states set different limits, for what is a fundamental right applicable to all states.
Article: Benitez notes that California would almost assuredly reduce the ten round limit anyway. It is arbitrary.
Article: As we've argued repeatedly, the States defending such laws are just trying to smuggle interest balancing back into the analysis under the pretense of it being a "plain text" analysis.
Article: Sadly, Judge Benitez does not read @TheReloadSite
apparently. @StephenGutowski
Article: Gonna need to update the law review article to include Judge Benitez in the section on modern judicial commentary.
Article: And yes, obviously magazines are "Arms".
Article: This argument was indeed a hilarious one the state made. It doesn't magically become a protected arm if it has ten rounds instead of eleven lol.
Article: I am SO glad he included this. Newsom's lawyers in the 1327 litigation took over for Bonta when he refused to defend that law, and we successfully baited them into taking this position. They didn't know they were supposed to gaslight.
Article: Pointing out more contradictions in the state's position, given current CA law makes a magazine literally necessary to fire a modern handgun for it to be sold here.
Article: Benitez takes apart the argument states like California are making regarding an arm only being protected if it is frequently actually used for self-defense.
Article: Benitez takes apart the tired "weapon of war" argument.
Article: Benitez goes through an excellent historical analysis that is more thorough than the superficial one we've seen other courts apply (on purpose, so they could uphold the laws).
Article: Benitez tells the state its discriminatory laws are no good here.
Article: He zeroes in on the state's reliance on regulations of concealed carry of weapons which were mostly note firearms.
Article: A point we emphasized in our briefing was that bans on possession of common arms just did not exist until the 20th century. Benitez got the message.
Article: I can see the Duke Law Blog article already.
Article: Benitez notes that while territory laws are of little value under Bruen, even if they were, the territories didn't ban any guns in the 19th century.
Article: This one seems to just be in there as a historical fun fact lol.
Article: As I've long maintained, the lack of regulation of revolvers and repeating rifles decides this issue.
Article: I was actually shocked that the State argued that gunpowder storage was their best analogue, as that is clearly dissimilar because the reasons for it had nothing to do with stopping gun-related crime.
Article: Yep. The "militia right only!" people are weirdly wary of citing actual laws about citizen militias, because they destroy the "weapon of war" arguments.
Article: What a banger of an opinion. Great read, and excited to help defend it in the 9th circuit.
USA v. Miller the SCOTUS said you could ban shotguns with short barrels because they had no military use ( while wrong WWI trench guns became common), while completely ignoring the militarily usefulness of automatic weapons.Frankly, the militia argument has always been odd to me because if the Second Amendment is intended to cover a citizen militia, then it by definition covers full fledged military weapons.
that case has horrible jurisprudence. the only reason the SC took the case was because there was no opposition to the .govs position, and in fact miller was dead before the case was decided.USA v. Miller
Shame there's no enforcement on that ruling.
Considering that if taken straight up, Miller holds that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to all firearm types, but specifically covers military weapons, I would absolutely accept that as a compromise.
The government may regulate non-military hunting weapons as restrictively as it pleases, but military small arms are a solid right. Full fledged select-fire ARs and suppressors for everyone!