Skip to comments.California Cities Are Free to Regulate Gun Stores Out of Existence
Posted on 05/17/2018 6:28:46 AM PDT by Zakeet
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday sent a clear message to millions of gun owners in California: You're living in a Second Amendment-free zone.
In an order on Monday, without explanation or comment, the Court rejected a civil rights lawsuit brought by the Calguns Foundation and the Second Amendment Foundation. Those groups had hoped the justices would rule that the Second Amendment continues to apply even in the progressive enclaves of the left coastand that law-abiding California residents possess the right to buy and sell firearms.
Instead, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, a decision that underscores its willingness to let California legislators and judges evade the Second Amendment within the borders of the state.
Their lawsuit challenges a decision by Alameda, a California county that includes Oakland and other east bay cities, to enact a zoning law so onerous it effectively bans gun stores. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit sided with Alameda in 2017, saying that "no historical authority suggests that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to sell a firearm."
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
In today's California, even adult movie theaters enjoy greater legal protections than gun stores.
So the federal government is entitled to force states to recognize homo “marriage” because of some fabricated right under the 14th Amendment, but has no power to force those same states to recognize the explicit right clearly stated in the 2nd Amendment?
In today’s California, even adult movie theaters enjoy greater legal protections than gun stores.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
Associate Justice since August 10, 1993
Associate Justice since February 18, 1988
Associate Justice since August 3, 1994
since October 23, 1991
Associate Justice since January 31, 2006
Perhaps it’s better to postpone that ruling until we have a few more Trump Justices on the Court. We already have one, and I would love to see five more (rejuvenate the seats held by Thomas and Alito with younger conservatives who will be there for a generation or more; replace Kennedy with a consistent vote for the Constitution; and replace RBG and Breyer with Americans who believe in the rule of law).
Every now and then, I imagine several decades with a Court dominated by six or more Justices who believe in the rule of law with written laws and a written Constitution that means what it says. Wouldn’t that be glorious?
But the ability to buy firearms is not a logical extension of keep and bear arms.
I guess the Supreme Court thinks each of us needs to have the ability to build our own guns then. Because if we cant buy them, where the hell are they going to come from! Ludicrous.
How do you put that line in your post? That looks so much better than the quotation marks I use. And Im too lazy to put in the HTML to make italics. Because then I have to put HTML all over the post or it gets garbled.
Put in that perspective, there is hope
But for the Supreme Court to decline here in this case, does that mean the majority of the justices didnt want to hear it?
Then the same is true of planned parenthood and abortion centers.
Weapon up, gentlemen. It’s coming.
I think its time for some gun charity - giving guns and rifles away to underserved gun deserts where the poor cant easily afford to defend themselves.
There needs to be “term limits” on SCOTUS nominees. People did not live as long when the Founding Fathers lived.
Wait! No wymn (? “women”) were involved in the drafting of the Constitution. It is thus invalid. /s
Never mind that the precious document has been an inspiration to millions.
When you are ready for a nursing home, you should retire from SCOTUS. Go and spend time with your grandchildren.
Does Alameda county and the city of Oakland think that by illegally banning gun stores that their gun crime rate will decrease?
These people are idiots.
This may not be so foolish of the USSC. This is the way the left wins wars all the time: picking the right battles.
It is a certainty that the Supreme Court will have the opportunity to define the second amendment more clearly. But Anthony Kennedy is unpredictable, and just loves a good outrage-provoking liberal ruling now and then. Roberts is somewhat more conservative, but clings to the notion of “stare decisis, (/stairee diss-eyesiss/)” which means only liberals get to revisit previously establish precedent.
The Republicans are near certain to retain the Senate. And I’m actually fairly confident the presidency in 2020. It’s safer to revisit once Kennedy, and maybe even Ginsburg and Breyer are gone.
Another thing, where will the sheriff and local PD get their stores and accessories?
What about gun shows.
All that tax revenue down the drain.
I still believe this nation will not survive another 5 years, especially if Democrats take back congress in 2018 and we get a Democrat POTUS in 2020.
Problem is the voting pool has been contaminated with millennials, foreign nationals and people on the dole that pay no taxes. None of these people have any clue what America is all about and have no clue what it means to be an American. And thats how we get leaders like Baraq 0bama, Kamala Harris, Keith Elleson, etc.
Maybe the SCOTUS is giving California the same consideration that California is giving the rest of the nation on it Sanctuary State status?
Let them make up and abuse all the rules they want. The aliens will take over and we will move in and kick all of them out, OR, maybe all the gun nuts will cut lose and take care of the government and the aliens all at the same time.
At no time do they even pretend to try to take guns from violent career criminals.
The goal is to take guns from non-violent, innocent citizens.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.