Tag: Prop. 63

Federal district court Judge Roger Benitez has issued a preliminary injunction stopping enforcement of Prop. 63‘s ban on the possession of standard capacity magazines. The judge found that irreparable will be done to law abiding California gun owners should the ban be allowed to go into effect pending litigation.

The Court does not lightly enjoin a state statute, even on a preliminary basis.
However, just as the Court is mindful that a majority of California voters approved
Proposition 63 and that the government has a legitimate interest in protecting the public
from gun violence, it is equally mindful that the Constitution is a shield from the tyranny
of the majority. Plaintiffs’ entitlements to enjoy Second Amendment rights and just
compensation are not eliminated simply because they possess “unpopular” magazines
holding more than 10 rounds.

If this injunction does not issue, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of
otherwise law-abiding citizens will have an untenable choice: become an outlaw or
dispossess one’s self of lawfully acquired property. That is a choice they should not have
to make. Not on this record.

Accordingly, with good cause appearing for the reasons stated in this opinion,
Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED.

Judge Benitez found that while the new law arguably fails the simple 2nd Amendment tests suggested by the Supreme Court in the Heller case, the law also likely fails the more lenient tests favored by the Ninth Circuit. The judge, who is based in San Diego, is bound to use the Ninth’s screwball tests; tests that seem like they were concocted to uphold whatever gun law comes before that court! But even under that low bar, the judge thinks that the State would fail to make its case.

The judge extensively examines the arguments presented by Attorney General Xavier Becerra’s office. The DOJ presented over 3100 pages of “evidence” supporting the law, but most of it can be summed up by the Dothraki phrase Me nem nesa; “It is known”. The “evidence”, which the court was apparently supposed to accept without question, is mostly anecdote, news clippings, and position papers. There’s also a curious reliance upon Mother Jones as an authority. (Some of you will recall that I’ve cited Mother Jones in these pages. But, I did it in the sense of “Look, if even Mother Jones says that    (Fill in the blank)    isn’t true, then it isn’t true.”) We were all just supposed to “know” that Prop. 63 is vital to public safety and that an injunction was thus unjustified. (For you GoT fans, the judge was expected to play the part of the Dothraki girls telling Daenerys Targaryen that “it is known” that dragons don’t exist anymore while there were all in the same tent with three dragon embryos!)

One a side note for those of you keeping score: Prop. 63 was also intended to be one of the jewels in Gavin Newsom’s gubernatorial crown. The whole thing wasn’t so much about keeping Californians safe as it was about getting the slimey, used car salesman into the Governor’s mansion.

Legal News

Today is your last day to register to vote in California. You can register online here. You’ve been reading about how awful Prop 63 is here and elsewhere for months now. DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! Even if Prop 63 wins at the polls, the NRA and other groups will fight it in the courts. They will do so on solid legal footing, but there is an undeniable influence that polls have on judges. A resounding victory for Gavin Newsom’s vanity proposition could provide a weak-kneed judge the cover he or she needs to ignore the Constitution and approve the law. If it squeaks by, that’s another story. Your vote matters whatever the outcome!

Don’t let the party elites (in either party!) demoralize you and keep you away from the polls. Register today and vote on November 8.

News Politics

We already know that liberals generally get the wrong “takeaway” from 1984. For them Winston Smith is the bad guy and BB is the hero. The mainstream media certainly takes its role as Minitrue seriously. But who knew that they also view Mike Judge’s Idiocracy with the same reverence.

There are many who have voiced suspicions that the deterioration of our education system is planned rather than mere entropy. Are these people tin-foil hat wearing crazies? Perhaps. But they may be correct tin-foil hat wearing crazies…

And as I’ve mentioned, we’ve all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry. The unawareness remains strong but compliance is obviously fading rapidly.

This is from a hacked email exchange between Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta and Bill Ivey, the former director of the National Endowment for the Arts. Ivey was appointed to that position by Bill Clinton and remains a “FOB“. It contains two interesting points. One is that Ivey, Podesta, and other liberals have indeed been conspiring “to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry”. (Proles, to use the newspeak term.) The second is that Ivey and Podest have discussed this before. This isn’t a one-off comment from Ivey; one where Podesta could claim he knows nothing of any conspiracies. The concept of furthering an “idiocracy” in America is something that neither man is unfamiliar with. But here, Ivey laments that they may not be the ones in charge once they’ve succeeded in dumbing down the population. They’re supposed to be the ones telling the rest of us that plants do not crave electrolytes and that we should stop pouring Brawndo on them.

For gun owners, this is nothing new. We’re quite used to anti-gun liberals attempting to exploit ignorance to sell their product. We’re used to Minitrue claiming that violent crime is rising (and that guns, therefore, ought to be banned) when, in fact, it hasn’t been this low since the ’70s. We’re used to being demagogued as bitter clingers, terrorists,  and racists. We’re used to these things, sure, but why do we accept them?

The more general growth of an “unaware and compliant citizenry” is a tough nut to crack. But the problem of ignorant gun muggles isn’t. There’s something we can do about it; and it’s loads of fun too!

Take your gun muggle friends shooting.

Who doesn’t want an excuse to go to the range? Here’s your chance. Between now and Election day, take a friend to the range. Let them see that guns and gun owners aren’t the monsters they’ve lead to believe they are. This is your perfect chance to then let them know why gun control in general, and Prop. 63 in particular, is a really bad idea. Let them know how pointless these laws are. Let them know that rank-and-file police oppose gun control. Let them know that law enforcement has come out against Prop. 63. You can post on Facebook or Twitter all you like, but there’s no more powerful argument than letting your friends put a few downrange.

News Politics

A San Diego businessman, Barry Bahrami, has filed with the California Secretary of State to start six petitions to repeal the six “Gunmageddon” bills. The bills, AB 1135, AB 1511, AB 1695, SB 880, SB 1235, and SB 1446, were signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown after rocketing out of the Legislature faster than a bad burrito through a drunken sorority girl on spring break. The Veto Gunmageddon campaign is attempting to place the measures on the fall ballot opposite Gavin Newsom’s “Safety for All” initiative, Prop. 63.

While I don’t claim to be an expert on California election law, my understanding is that initiatives of this type cause the affected laws to be held in abeyance until the matter is decided by the People. And given that the Fall ballot is already crowded with upwards of 21 measures, missing the deadline for the November ballot might not be a bad thing. Past elections have shown that voters tend to vote “no, no, no, no, no, no… NO!” when confronted by voter guides the size of a small encyclopedia. It may be better for these initiatives to appear on a later, less crowded ballot rather than joining the electoral flash mob on the Fall 2016 ballot.

Anti-gun Legislation News Politics State

News

Are you also reminded of the underpants gnomes when you listen to the anti-gun types? They both have equally nebulous business plans. For the anti-gun left, the plan is…

  • Phase 1: Pass laws.
  • Phase 2:         ?
  • Phase 3: No more guns!

The 2nd phase of the underpants gnomes’ plan is a complete mystery. There is no conceivable Phase 2 that could actually link “Collect underpants” to “Profit”. No one, not even Cartman, could tell us what Phase 2 could possibly be.

The 2nd phase of the anti-gun plan, however, is actually quite obvious: Gun owners cooperate and surrender their arms. What’s not clear is whether or not the average anti-gun leftist is aware that our cooperation is a necessary ingredient for the plan’s success. As we’ve mentioned before, Americans are remarkably uncooperative when it comes to obeying gun laws. Thus a plan that requires the active participation of its victims is not one with a promising future.

The “senior partners” in the movement are likely aware of the missing and unobtainable component of their plan. They probably know that the goal they claim to support cannot be achieved. In short, they’re lying to their followers about ridding the US of its guns. While they know that the movement is seeking the impossible, there’s real profit to be made. For them, that is. They raise money by tricking the rubes into thinking that there’s really a way to disarm the American people. Better still for them, their “investors” are people who reward intentions rather than results.

This November, Gavin Newsom is banking on that habit of rewarding intentions over results. His “Safety for All” initiative doesn’t actually have to win in November. Nor does it actually have to work if it does win. What matters to California Democrats is that “his heart’s in the right place” and that “he means well”. So when it comes to his 2018 gubernatorial bid, “Safety for All” is already paying dividends. Even if Prop 63 turns into an election day disaster, (i.e. turning out millions of screaming mad gun owners who flip the State for Donald Trump!) Gavin Newsom will still reap a tidy profit from his investment. So while his business plan isn’t anything close to the anti-gun business plan, Newsom does have a plausible Phase 2: “Trick them again”.

News