SAF sues Cali over sensitive places

[Muleskinner]

False.

How so? Every state in the country has some form of infringement. Therefore my statement is not false.

 

[Boondock Saint]

How so? Every state in the country has some form of infringement. Therefore my statement is not false.

No, your statement as quoted is false. Your statement that every state has some degree of infringement is accurate, obviously.

They are different statements, of course.

 

[swinokur]

How was his spelling?

 

[Bob A]

The long term effect of the left having bought the law schools decades ago and our own side not even understanding the fight, only challenging on the downstream side and only since 2008.

The Federalist Society has been active in law schools, and is a countervailing force promoting originalism.

 

[swinokur]

 

[Muleskinner]

No, your statement as quoted is false. Your statement that every state has some degree of infringement is accurate, obviously.

They are different statements, of course.

If you say so...I see it all as the same. Gun Control is gun control. Anything that impairs our ability to keep and bear arms is gun control...you're playing semantics..

 

[Boondock Saint]

If you say so...I see it all as the same. Gun Control is gun control. Anything that impairs our ability to keep and bear arms is gun control...you're playing semantics..

Your first statement was: "Nothing that any 2A advocacy group has done has stopped gun control anywhere."

Given that 2A advocacy has actually stopped innumerable measures across the country at various points in the legislative process, your statement is demonstrably false. From a bill not even being filed, to getting it withdrawn before the committee holds a hearing, amended to mute the bill's original scope, killed in committee, etc., advocacy is and has been effective.

It is not 100% effective, as evidenced by the fact that gun control still exists. In fact, I conceded that point in an earlier post. My points are that your statements have different meanings, that one of them is false, and advocacy is a useful tool in our toolbox.

 

[krucam]

 

[Stoveman]

Savage....

 

[eruby]

How was his spelling?

Damn your eyes

Diet Mt Dew through the nose is painful

Savage....

Bazinga!!!!

Liberal tears are more tasty than vermouth in a martini

 

[swinokur]

SAF VICTORY! FED. APPEALS COURT RESTORES BLOCK OF CA CCW LAW​

BELLEVUE, WA – The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed an earlier order which put a hold on a lower court ruling that blocked California’s new law prohibiting concealed carry in most public places, handing a significant victory to gun rights groups including the Second Amendment Foundation.



The law had been blocked by U.S. District Court Judge Cormac J. Carney, who declared the statute “repugnant to the Second Amendment, and openly defiant of the Supreme Court.” The case is known as May v. Bonta.



“This is a major win for California gun owners and the Second Amendment,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “It is a definite wake-up call to anti-gun Gov. Gavin Newsom and his Democrat colleagues in the California legislature who pushed through the ‘sensitive places’ law as a way of thumbing their nose at the Supreme Court, as well as the Constitution.”



Joining SAF in its case are Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of California, Liberal Gun Owners Association, the California Rifle & Pistol Association and eleven private citizens. They are represented by attorneys C.D. Michel, Sean A. Brady and Konstadinos T. Moros at Michel & Associates in Long Beach, and Donald Kilmer, Law Offices of Don Kilmer, Caldwell, Idaho.



“Judge Carney correctly sees California’s law as an affront to the Constitution,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “We’re delighted the Ninth Circuit Court will allow his order, blocking the law to remain in effect. We certainly expect to prevail.”



The “sensitive places” law was California’s response to the 2022 Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which established new parameters on handling and deciding Second Amendment cases.

 

[kcbrown]

I don’t understand why California hasn’t requested en banc review of this action by the panel. Surely California could get the stay on the injunction reimposed that way?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk