1. 12

  2. 3

    …..and the odds that Califailure Gov. Gavin Typical Democrat Newsom will veto any of these are zero. It’s a real wonder the typical Democrats in Califailure haven’t simply gone for the brass ring and fully legislate 2A out of existence in the state.

    1. 1

      Yup. The left has tried this, and kind of succeeded. The good guys can file lawsuits in California, but even if they get before a district judge who respects the Constitution, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit will reverse. And even if the three-judge panel somehow finds its way to respecting the Constitution, the full 9th Circuit sitting en banc will reverse. (See Peruta v. San Diego for a good example of this.)

      It’s time for the Supreme Court to do something about the sad phenomenon of anti-constitutional circuit court judges thumbing their noses at precedent.

      1. 1

        See this article from Reason over the summer:

        Anti-gun politicians have been forthright about this goal. Last fall, then-Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, now California’s governor, wrote a letter to the 22nd District Agricultural Association asking it to stop allowing the Crossroads of the West show to lease the Del Mar fairgrounds. “Permitting the sale of firearms and ammunition on state-owned property only perpetuates America’s gun culture,” Newsom wrote.

        Newsom’s predecessor, Gov. Jerry Brown, last year vetoed a bill that would have prevented gun shows from taking place at the Cow Palace, a state-owned exhibition hall near San Francisco. AB 893, a bill currently making its way through the California state legislature, would explicitly ban gun shows at the Del Mar fairgrounds. Newsom, who is more hostile to the Second Amendment than Brown, is likely to sign it.

      2. 1

        The list of anti-constitutional bills is worse than I thought:

        Assembly Bill 12… extend the duration of California’s “gun violence restraining order” law from one year to a period of up to five years. Meaning a person could be prohibited from owning and possessing firearms for five years at a time without ever being adjudicated as dangerously mentally ill or convicted of a crime. ​

        Assembly Bill 61… would expand the list of those eligible to file “gun violence restraining orders” beyond the currently authorized petitioners, which include immediate family and law enforcement. The new list is expanded to employers, coworkers and employees of a secondary or postsecondary school that the person has attended in the last 6 months. GVRO’s can remove a person’s Second Amendment rights, not based on criminal convictions or mental health adjudications, but based on third party allegations, often without due process until weeks after a person’s rights have been suspended.​

        Assembly Bill 879… would require precursor firearms parts to be sold/transferred through a licensed precursor parts dealer in a similar process to the new laws regarding ammunition purchases…create a registry of these parts and a new crime for transfer of precursor parts without the involvement of a licensed precursor parts dealer… Precursor parts include items such as unfinished frames and receivers.

        Assembly Bill 893… prohibit the sale of firearms and ammunition at the Del Mar fairgrounds…

        Assembly Bill 1297…would remove the maximum fee a local authority can charge on the concealed carry permit application.

        Assembly Bill 1669, sponsored by Assembly Member Rob Bonta (D-18), would raise the fees paid by consumers when purchasing firearms.

        Senate Bill 61… expand California’s existing one handgun a month law to also apply to handguns or centerfire semi-automatic rifles… expands the prohibition on acquisition of firearms by a person under 21 years of age by eliminating the existing exception for 18-20 year-olds with a valid hunting license.

        Senate Bill 172… expand California’s existing storage laws and includes harsh penalties, such as a 10 year ban on firearm ownership. ​​

        Taken as a whole, this is pretty dramatic.

        Sure, pro-Constitution groups can raise money to fight the anti-constitutionalists by litigating these. But not all of the 9 are vulnerable to a Second Amendment challenge (at least under current jurisprudence). Worse yet, the pro-Constitution groups are using their own money to fund the litigation. The anti-constitutionalists get to fund their defense with taxpayer dollars.