A federal judge has granted a preliminary injunction in the case challenging California’s ban on nonresident carry of firearms, thanks largely to the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
According to the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), U.S. District Court Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction in the case California Rifle & Pistol Association v. Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. The state has 21 days to file a response, and within 30 days plaintiffs must “meet and confer” with the state and Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department “to submit a proposed order entering the preliminary injunction consistent with the specific findings” made by the court order.
“Americans do not leave their Second Amendment right to bear arms at the California border,” Alan M. Gottlieb, SAF founder and executive vice president, said. “California is behind the curve in recognizing that the Second Amendment was incorporated to the states via the 14th Amendment since SAF’s Supreme Court victory in the 2010 McDonald ruling.”
Along with nonresident carry, also at issue in the case was two plaintiffs who have had their concealed carry permit applications pending for more than a year and a half, without being either approved or rejected. The judge found that situation didn’t live up to the second Bruen standard requiring a historical precedent.
“The Court finds the LA Defendants have not carried their burden to demonstrate that the over 18-month delays imposed on Individual Plaintiffs Weimer and Messel are part of a historic tradition of firearms regulation,” the judge wrote. “First, Plaintiffs are correct that the only laws from the Founding era to which the LA Defendants cite are those that outlaw carrying based on race, and the LA Defendants do not explain how racial regulations bear on a waiting period. The LA Defendants otherwise cite to regulations allowing municipal authorities to issue CCW licenses, most of which arose for the first time around the 1870s, among various other twentieth century regulations that set forth licensing regimes for CCW licenses. This is insufficient to carry the LA Defendants’ burden.”
Adam Kraut, SAF executive director, said this initial victory in the case is a good sign for things to come.
“The writing is clearly on the wall when Judge Garnett noted the Court already found that we are likely to succeed on the merits of our argument that California’s residency requirement for CCW applications is unconstitutional,” kraut said. “We are confident our challenge will continue to prevail.”
The case was brought by the SAF, along with the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of California and seven private citizens.
Nice! Let’s keep kicking them communists arses!!
Works for me!
Non-residents; this must be for the illegals.
Only if the permits are free and let them vote
Sadly, my home state has a solid track record of playing games with the courts. I’d suspect that there will be no change on this issue for many more years.
yep. this will get stayed in 30 days then appealed for at least 5 years. then state will pass another asinine law making the permit useless as a practical matter and any legal challenge will languish for years as always. nothing actually changes.
Interim appeal to the 9th Circuit INCOMING! Though really I don’t think there are that many people who come to California regularly enough to jump through all of the hoops and expenses residents do to make it worthwhile acquire a license.
Guess what California TTAG’ers, your ammo background check fee is about to rise 500 percent, from 1 dollar, to 5 bucks!
https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/ammofee
the judge explicitly rejected plaintiffs effort to have CA honor out of state permits. So this is definitely not a victory. CA will make it so convoulted and impossible to get such a permit (in person only; 30 day waiting period, etc etc) it wont actually exist.
Like ILLANNOY I fear Commiefornia is doomed. Heck the whole left coast. Sorry😧
When Trump is elected and restarts border wall construction it needs to make a right turn at the western border of Arizona and go north to the Canadian border. Leaving Commiefornia, Oregonistan and Washingtonistan on the outside. Sorry to the Patriots that choose to live in these 5hithole states, but sacrifices need to be made. Just like taking some good flesh to rid the cancer from of a sick patient.
Run it up the crest of the Cascades, if you please..
Eastern Washington isn’t really part of the problem.
Stuck in Pugetopia has a very good point. Far Left Ultra Pr0gre$$ive Dem0crats are almost entirely within 70 miles of the Pacific Ocean. The eastern 75% of California, Oregon, and Washington are very conservative and would probably welcome a demarcation line separating the Ultra Far Left population along the coast.
All we would need to do is run the wall northerly along the western-most mountain ranges which run north-south. Off the top of my head, that means the coastal ranges of Southern California, the Sierra Nevada mountains of Central California, another coastal range for Northern California, and the coastal range for Oregon and Washington (which is the Cascades if I remember correctly).
In other news, although it will have no precedential value, a district court in Kansas had GRANTED a motion to dismiss criminal charges against an individual on 2A grounds for possessing a “machine gun.” https://ecf.ksd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2023cr10047-35
One of the firearms was an AR style rifle in 300 blk, and the other was a Glock switch.
There’s quite the thread on the other website, SNW about that case, with LKB offering his input…
Better than a loss, I guess.
For the moment.
Freedom just received a boost by RFK suspending his campaign and endorsing DJT. The democRat Party treated RJK like trash whereas Hannity and others provided air time for RFK. I believe RFK now sees the democrat Party as the Rat Party it is, most any politically astute individual who watched 5 minutes of the DNC should agree with that sad fact…
https://youtube.com/watch?v=ifmuGQJ7lRo&feature=shared
Sometimes it takes being personally burned by Dems before you realize how bad things have gotten. Ask Bobby or Elon.
You forgot JFK. He just didn’t learn fast enough.
The Dems actively sought to k persuade RFK from running at all, and barred him from primary tickets. As far as I recall, there were no challengers to President Bidet in the primaries, a ploy intended to demonstrate “unity” and to bolster the flagging campaign until there was no option but to put up another candidate. In a naked demonstration of political power, the Party elite executed a palace coup against Ol’ Joe, and with nary a vote from the faithful, selected the person to replace him. Democracy in action!
His only remaining base is “hey, we like eating roadkill bears too!”
This isn’t a big constituency but by God, he’s got 100% of it!
Well, Debbie, I’m not a great big fan of Bobby Jr. but he is correct in his conclusion that “lawfare” has been unleashed by the “Dems” against not only him but President Trump as well. Hopefully, we’ll get some votes out of his conversion. MAGA 2024!
I am not convinced this will bode well for Trump since RFK Jr. will still be on the ballot and people who would have voted for Trump (had RFK Jr. NOT been on the ballot) will vote for RFK Jr., thus reducing Trump’s vote tally.
RFK in the video lays out, in basically outline because it would take hundreds of pages to lay it all out, the very ‘tips of the iceberg’ of what the Democrat party is today. Everything he lays out is fully documented, with evidence, what they have done and are and has appeared in the hearings in Congress. He focuses on mostly their efforts to suppress and control and do away with the first amendment by bending it their will and purpose, but, what he lays out also reveals hints to their attempts to overthrow the country and do the same to all of the first 10 of the rights of the people in the Bill of Rights and other rights as well.
The first 10 are very important to the Democrat party, they are standing in their way of overthrowing the country to install a mar- x -ist soc – i – a – list commu -ni – sum. These are the the foundation upon which all the others are built, if they can subjugate them to their will, control them, make them ‘conditional’ (e.g. ‘government permission’ based), do away with the free will liberty exercise of them, any one of them, they will have set ‘precedent’ they can fully control any right they wish and the rights of the people will become the rights of the government to control the people.
Biden has tried it, with the first amendment as RKF lays out. But behind the scenes and in court, including SCOTUS, and in congress he also has tried it with all of the first 10.
For example, for the 4th Amendment he tried it in the SCOTUS case Caniglia v. Strom by sending in his DOJ to make a case that the ‘community care taking’ exception to the 4th should, basically, be allowed by ‘government’ any time they wanted to say ‘community care taking’ for any reason they decided. If it were that way it would have allowed the ‘government’ in any form (e.g. federal, state, local, police, any ‘government’ agency, etc…) to simply say ‘Its community care taking cause we say so so don’t need a warrant to take property or search or confine a person’. Thankfully, SCOTUS saw through that and ruled for Caniglia.
Had SCOTUS not ruled for Caniglia, a Biden and Kamala purge would have began, most likely having Kamala as the ‘community care taking czar’. And most likely a ‘gun confiscation’ would have began using military forces and federal law enforcement, and besides most of that military refusing to follow orders to bring to bear armed force against American citizens, because its an unconstitutional and unlawful order and morally wrong and illegal, Biden and Kamala would have found a small but suitable portion willing to do it and it would have happened incrementally over time (and many of those in that ‘small but suitable portion’ and that federal law enforcement would have died trying, and some of their victims would have died too in their defense against this tyranny).
The democrats demonstrated this ability to have a small but willing police and military force do their bidding – during the protests Walz ordered police and National Guard, to basically, open fire on innocent civilians on their own front porches. Paint ball guns were used by police, but they were also armed with real guns and they were ordered to use real guns to fire at innocent civilians if the paint ball use failed to terrorize them into submission. The ‘hand selected’ military contingent members in the National Guard were not armed with paint ball guns, if there had been serious refusal-resistance to the hand-selected police by the innocent civilians on their own front porches the military contingent could have engaged. Trump didn’t know of these unlawful orders from Walz, the left-wing FBI members in his administration kept hidden from him the extent and he ended up praising Walz for his actions but it would have been different had Trump not been deceived by those in his administration.
A purge where anyone who said anything the government decided was ‘dis/mis-information’ or the government didn’t like, or anyone who had property the government didn’t want them to have or the government wanted (e.g. land), anyone who owned a gun, and a whole lot more, would have been been ‘purged’ by being subjected to warrentless searches, invasion of their homes and property, seizure of their property, seizure of children because their parents refused the ‘trans’ indoctrination (this is an actual plan by the radical LGTBQ sector of that community, you saw some of the ring leaders of this plan at that white house event for pride month celebration). And a whole lot more by the government simply claiming ‘community care taking’. It would not have mattered if such could have been overcome in the years it takes to get a favorable ruling or get to SCOTUS – in the mean while the damage will have been done, lives ruined, people incarcerated for years, and many killed by the armed ‘government’ entities sent to enforce their ‘its community care taking cause we say so’.
I feel like every election since Ross Perot, I’m always voting AGAINST someone rather than FOR someone.
I have a suggestion for that!
One man, one vote – BUT! You can vote either FOR or AGAINST a chosen candidate.
If you vote against a dweeb, 1 vote is subtracted from said dweeb’s total.
Dweebs that end up with negative totals get (fill in the blank) at high noon.
Example: Hillary vs Ike, for kangaroo inspector – instead of being forced to vote for the late and lamented Eisenhower, you can actually vote AGAINST Hillary!
I offer this tongue in cheek, but it is actually a very good idea that greatly expands voter discretion…
I told my, now deceased, dad many, many years ago that when I voted that it was not for who I thought would do the best job but for the one who I thought would do the least amount of damage. I stand by that.
Yep, the Buckley Doctrine from a different angle.
You should have been voting FOR Perot. Imagine if we had a Perot for the past three decades. We wouldn’t have the debt/spending and inflation crisis right now. (It won’t be over once we get through the current inflation issue.) But people dismissed him as a joke because they’ve been conditioned all of their lives to listen to the “news” and vote for the mainstream candidates.
I feel like every election since Ross Perot, I’m always voting AGAINST someone rather than FOR someone.
A vote in favor of one choice is rejection of all other choices. Thus, a vote “for” is, indeed, a vote “against.
None of the above should be a choice at the bottom of every ballot.
None of the above should be a choice at the bottom of every ballot.
Agree.
But, what happens when “none of the above” wins?
I presume that the incumbent gets kicked out, and the office remains empty until the next election cycle, unless a special election is ordered. And, if “none of the above” actually wins, maybe people will take notice that the office is open to Independents, Greens, or whoever should throw his hat in the ring. And, we could hope that the two parties will take note that their regular pig swill candidates aren’t doing the job.
I presume that the incumbent gets kicked out, and the office remains empty until the next election cycle,…
Empty office.
Brilliant!
If only.
“But, what happens when “none of the above” wins?”
Amendment 12 of the United States Constitution creates a process called “contingent election” when no presidential candidate wins a majority of the Electoral College.
In a contingent election, the president is chosen by the members of the incoming Congress elected to the House in 2024 “immediately” after the electoral votes are canvassed on Jan. 6, 2025 under current law. The vice president is chosen by the members of the Senate who are elected in 2024 or whose terms expire later.
Explained here > https://thehill.com/opinion/4713352-if-no-one-wins-270-electoral-college-votes-what-happens-next/
“But, what happens when “none of the above” wins?”
Amendment 12 of the United States Constitution creates a process called “contingent election” when no presidential candidate wins a majority of the Electoral College.
In a contingent election, the president is chosen by the members of the incoming Congress elected to the House in 2024 “immediately” after the electoral votes are canvassed on Jan. 6, 2025 under current law. The vice president is chosen by the members of the Senate who are elected in 2024 or whose terms expire later.
Well, that’s just great; spoils everything. Wanted to experience a time when officies remain vacant between elections.
where’s that “like” button?
“where’s that “like” button?”
Think we are supposed to respond with +1, or something.
Comments are closed.