« Hunter Biden indictment | Main | Lott: how often do armed citizens stop mass shootings? »
Illustration of California law
9th Circuit case, here. Case dismissed as moot, but it's illustrative of abuse potential. California law forbids firearms possession by anyone subject to ANY form of restraining order (domestic or not). This couple had a crazy neighbor, who filed for a restraining order on the basis that the couple's security cam was invading her privacy. Some sloppy judge granted it, and so they wound up as prohibited possessors for years.
2 Comments | Leave a comment
We can thank the SCOTUS for all the state level problems. The supremes constantly pull stuff from their nether regions and claim it's part of the Constitution.
If something is not DELEGATED IN WRITING in the Constitution, that something is withheld. Always was that way legitimately.
1833 Supremes incorrectly claim that the BoR does not apply to the states in the fact of all facts, ignoring Madison's stupid plan to simply insert the new clauses in the original document. The SC ignored that the 3rd offered amendment specified the feds while the 4th through the 12 were not directed solely at the feds. Under the Supremacy clause those amendments not directly targeting the feds then target ALL government as they are the supreme law of the land.
Nowadays the supremes look at state level gun laws from the 19th and early 20th centuries and say, "Well that's how it was". However, since the 2nd didn't bind the states no state law since 1833 has any relationship to the 2nd and the SC should completely ignore those laws. If it weren't for the SC screw-ups there would be no claim concerning the 2nd not covering concealed carry and the states having no authority to require permits to exercise a God given Right. Even the BS about sensitive places comes from the lies of the courts.
The SC has screwed things up and don't have the cojones to simply state that this and this and this and that were wrong and are hereby nullified. Then issue decisions without pulling penumbras, emanations and implications out of their arses.
Takings have been ruled actionable even for minor amounts.
A "temporary" loss of rights is still a loss and the injury is never moot.