“... then “likely unconstitutional” might be a basis for suspending the law until a final determination could be made. In which case “likely” is “good enough for now.” It gets the job done for now.”
::::::::::
Thanks for the explanation and detail. Well, it would be nice to see the anti-Constitution radicals of California’s system suffer a setback to their anti-gun agenda. Hopefully it will go to the courts. May be moot if the honest judges can be found in this state that will uphold the law, instead of changing it from the bench.
In the Reynolds case, the 9th Circuit held that a California man could NOT be guilty of violating the federal ban on possession of an unlicensed machine gun, because the machine gun in question had been made (homemade even) in California, and never left Reynolds' house.
SCOTUS ordered the 9th Circuit to reverse its decision, using the Raich (pot) case as rationale. Anything and everything has a connection to interstate commerce, even if the thing is entirely homemade.
At any rate, California has no monopoly on loony judges. When it comes to the right to keep and bear arms, the federal courts are totally corrupt.