“good cause” requirement challenge in Cali
A three judge panel said the requirement was unconstitutional. The full court said infringing rights is okey dokey. It may get to the Supreme Court.
A three judge panel said the requirement was unconstitutional. The full court said infringing rights is okey dokey. It may get to the Supreme Court.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
Find Local
|
August 17th, 2016 at 8:22 pm
If the election goes the wrong way, I really truly hope they don’t take it to the Supreme Court. It could end very badly.
August 18th, 2016 at 12:24 am
Get ready for it to end badly, then. Hillary has this election stolen already.
The dissent in Heller can be applied to any individual right: sure, we all agree individuals have rights but the exercise of those rights may be banned completely for any reason one can imagine.
August 18th, 2016 at 12:52 am
Hawkins got himself lost I’m afraid. The 3 judge panel decision noted that California had banned both open and effectively concealed and that was inconsistent with Heller. The en banc decision dishonestly ignored that argument entirely.
August 18th, 2016 at 2:02 pm
Much of the judiciary, especially federal, are lawless renegades. I think it’s largely because of the ridiculous and false idea that ” judges are independent”. No! They are “bound by the law” according to Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution.
August 18th, 2016 at 2:07 pm
“It has long been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression,… that the germ of dissolution of our Federal Government is in the constitution of the Federal Judiciary–an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow), working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States and the government be consolidated into one. To this I am opposed.” –Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond, 1821