Now that Neil Gorsuch (above) is firmly ensconced in the Supreme Court there’s no more reason for delaying some of the bigger cases. One of those cases stuck in development hell: Peruta v. California.

The lawsuit in question asks the Supremes to rectify the Ninth Circuit Court’s ruling that the Golden State has the right to prohibit its citizens from bearing arms. Here’s wikipedia.org‘s take on their “reasoning”:

The court reviewed the history of gun control cases in which laws forbidding the concealed carry of weapons were involved. They covered a time period from 1299 (in England) to the late 1800s US Supreme Court.

The majority opinion was that there was an “overwhelming consensus” of historical case decisions establishing that there was never a time in history when courts believed that states could not prohibit concealed carry. Consequently, they concluded it could not be a violation of the long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment.

The minority argued that a prohibition on concealed carry for the general public, accompanied by a similar prohibition on open carry, was a de facto gun ban, and therefore is unconstitutional under District of Columbia v. Heller.

The Supreme Court has been kicking the the concealed carry can down the road for some time. As the SCOTUS Blog notes, the case has just been re-listed for the next conference.

What is “relisting?” It’s an arcane and obscure function, but extremely important in the current climate.

Justices decide which cases to hear (grant cert) at regularly scheduled conferences. If everything is flowing smoothly, the justices will decide whether to hear the case or send it back down to the lower courts at these meetings.

Needless to say, over the last couple years things haven’t been flowing smoothly. Since Justice Scalia popped his clogs in Texas, the Court has been a man down, creating a four – four split of conservative vs. activist judges (for lack of a better term). Some of the bigger cases have been pushed from one conference to the next, waiting for Congress to confirm a possibly tie-breaking Justice.

Now that the Court is once again fully staffed, these cases are finally coming to conference. They’re being “relisted.”

This may be reading the tea leaves a little too closely, but relisting Peruta v California may be an indication that the Court is finally ready to tackle the Constitutional questions surrounding California’s concealed carry licensing, or lack thereof.

If the Supreme Court were to rule in favor of Peruta, if it decrees that the right to keep and bear arms includes bearing arms, it could strike a death blow to the “may issue” concealed carry regimes in New Jersey, Hawaii and every other state where gun rights are routinely trampled in the name of public safety.

If it rules for California, the dark shadow falling over these states’ gun owners could become even darker . . .

Those of us on the pro-gun side of this case shouldn’t be popping the champagne corks. The case isn’t scheduled. And the math on the decision is decidedly dicey; depending as it does on Justice Kennedy to do the right thing (so to speak).

Watch this space.

49 Responses to Supreme Court May Be Moving Forward on Pro-Gun Peruta v. California

  1. I hope this turns out in favor of fun owners in the least.

    I also hope GOA wins their Heller-based lawsuit against the unconstitutional Hughes Amendment, and hopefully this happens sooner than later.

    • Right now we’re going to have to do this the more tiresome way and dismantle the laws.

      And to keep note of which Republicans are not actually friendly to the 2A and the enthusiasts who enjoy its protection.

      Right now getting NFA restrictions on suppressors is the big deal.

      National reciprocity on concealed carry permits is probably going to be the next big one.

      We need firearm enthusiasts across the country to actually get active at the local and state level to stop the anti-gunner garbage from happening anymore.

      • Gun grabbers have been stubbornly insisting that they’ll take down “the gun lobby” a papercut at a time. I think it’s great that the firearms community and pro-liberty activism is striking back in the same way, and better, actually making progress.

        Sure we might not get a complete repeal of the NFA by 2020, but if we keep at it we can make progress one bit of legislation at a time. Ideally I’d like to see the Hughes Amendment hit next, then enacting national carry reciprocity, and finally import restrictions.

        • Wanting national reciprocity puts us on both sides of the government involvement argument. First we don’t want government legislating national gun control laws, then we want government to legislate government gun control law we like. Unfortunately, the only way to stay consistent is via court rulings (and subsequent law suits that bite) that prohibit government from establishing any law regarding government involvement (but we first need to get the concept of “compelling government interest” abolished.)

      • I doubt the Justice will retire during a session. He has hired clerks and done other duties that indicate he will remain through the session. A better bet is at the session’s end.

  2. Even if the Supremes rule on it…and in the favor of the plaintiffs even, California will just ignore the ruling, like they do with every other federal law they don’t like since Obama left office.

    • ” California will just ignore the ruling,”

      If shall issue is ruled constitutional, they will abide by it in most convoluted way possible.

      For a primer, see how they did it in Chicago after the McDonald ruling.

      If it goes our way, the real battle will be just beginning. Expect stuff like gun free zones that will make it practically impossible to move about armed in a traditionally anti city. They are going to throw everything they have to thwart the spirit of the law.

      Our best hope will be that SCOTUS will hopefully realize that and word the ruling to nip as much of it as possible it in the bud.

      Ideally, I’d like to see at the state level preemption laws with real teeth holding those responsible for those bullshit laws *personally* criminally and fiscally liable…

      • This right here. People are actually expecting places like Maryland or California to respect the court if they ever change the laws to “Shall Issue”.

        If “Shall Issue” is made law you better expect places like CA to make it so expensive and restrictive that no one will be able to get it. Expect another 10 yearlong court battle once CA says that you need 40 hours of training per year for a permit, $1000 per year for a permit, and mandatory gun free zones in every possible place. This will be a victory in name only if it ever happens (And I’m not holding my breath that it will since that traitor Kennedy doesn’t appear to be going anywhere anytime soon.)

        • Huh? Kennedy is expected to retire next month at the end of the June term.

  3. I dunno. With Kennedy there, I’ll wait to celebrate. I sure hope him and the old witch fade into history this year. That kind of edge on SCOTUS would be game changing.

  4. Laws forbidding the concealed carry of weapons from 1299 (in England) to the late 1800s.
    US Constitution (1776). Laws prior to 1776 have no bearing on United States law based on the Constitution.
    So from 1776 to the late 1800s, what laws where examined? Where these laws United states law or where they from another country. Using another country’s interpretation of the law to resolve a United States law is absurd.

    • You are absolutely correct. However, the activist justices and luberal lawmakers make these kinds of arguments all the time, almost as a slap in the face to American sovereignty, legitimacy, history, and the constitution. That is actually the argument they used, successfully, to pass roe v wade.

      • You must be classifying Scalia as an activist judge, because that’s precisely what he did in their reasoning which gave us the Heller decision: examined the matter of keeping and bearing arms clear back into British common law. That’s absolutely necessary for originalism, because it shows what the Founders and Framers, and their fathers and grandfathers, understood the right to be.

        • I’d agree you’re right on that. But if I remember correctly, with roe v wade in particular they went back beyond even British history and into Greek antiquity to make the argument.

        • I’ve read several SCOTUS cases the reference Greek this or that. Roe v. Wade focused on how the quickening was the point at which killing a fetus was murder under the common law. The quickening is the point in pregnancy when the fetus’s movement is first felt. It was the first point at which anyone had any proof that the baby was alive. From this, the opinion uses bizarre reasoning reaches the point that abortion is a right.

        • @Roymond

          Don’t be daft. Mentioning historical context or common law tradition does not make someone an activist. In fact, the opposite is true. Activists will pretend to use historical reasons but they will never pass the bullshit smell test.

          Think about it this way. The City of Los Angeles decides to draw and quarter anyone convicted of racism starting tomorrow, and the trial will be a secret tribunal. The practice is challenged in court and works its way to the supreme court.

          The 9th Circuit-type judges examine Roman history and determine that floggings, brandings, and crucifiction were all normal accepted consequences for rebellious or foul acts. They cite English history and state that the rack, quartering, and the thumb screws were approved by parliament and generally accepted to be fair punishments for misdeeds in 1305. They cite Georgia and Alabama practices used on fugitive slaves in the 1840s and say that these were legal and common.

          In fact, the 9th Circuit decides that any punishment that the public-officials chooses is not “cruel or unusual” because they represent the will of the people in all things, and nothing is “cruel or unusual” unless the mayor or the court decides so.

          The Scalia of the group reads the 8th amendment and says “Huh, let’s read some of the founder writers and try to narrow down exactly what they meant.” Pretty easily, he discovers that the Roman and English public shows were EXACTLY what the founders were stating was illegal.

          So both judges here cited historical examples, but the Scalia figure did it to uphold the guiding principles behind the constitution.

          The others knew the outcome that they wanted, and simply cited many examples tyrants ignoring those principles of liberty.

        • @Roymond

          Don’t be daft. Mentioning historical context or common law tradition does not make someone an activist. In fact, the opposite is true. Activists have a decision they will arrive at no matter what, and will pretend to use historical reasons but these will never pass the bullshit smell test.

          Think about it this way. The City of Los Angeles decides to draw and quarter anyone convicted of racism starting tomorrow, and the trial will be a secret tribunal. The practice is challenged in court and works its way to the supreme court.

          The 9th Circuit-type judges examine Roman history and determine that floggings, brandings, and crucifiction were all normal accepted consequences for rebellious or foul acts. They cite English history and state that the rack, quartering, and the thumb screws were approved by parliament and generally accepted to be fair punishments for misdeeds in 1305. They cite Georgia and Alabama practices used on fugitive slaves in the 1840s and say that these were legal and common.

          In fact, the 9th Circuit decides that any punishment that the public-officials chooses is not “cruel or unusual” because they represent the will of the people in all things, and nothing is “cruel or unusual” unless the mayor or the court decides so.

          The Scalia of the group reads the 8th amendment and says “Huh, let’s read some of the founder writers and try to narrow down exactly what they meant.” Pretty easily, he discovers that the Roman and English public shows were EXACTLY what the founders were stating was illegal.

          So both judges here cited historical examples, but the Scalia figure did it to uphold the guiding principles behind the constitution.

          The others knew the outcome that they wanted, and simply cited many examples tyrants ignoring those principles of liberty.

    • Sorry, guys, but it’s British law AFTER 1776 that has no bearing on U.S. law. British common law was accepted as the basis for U.S. common law, and thus as a basis for interpreting what U.S. laws, including the Constitution, mean.

      Don’t forget that the American Revolution was a CONSERVATIVE revolution at root, an effort to retain the “traditional rights of Englishmen”. It is thus the case that the rights of Englishmen as enshrined in British law at the time of the Revolution tell us exactly what Americans were fighting for. That includes the Second Amendment, which is nothing but a brief statement of the traditional right of Protestant Englishmen while extending it to all regardless of religious affiliation.

      That said, reaching as far back as the thirteenth century is a bit of absurdity, since the Second Amendment, as does British common law at the time, assumes that arms are commonly available to at least the great majority of men, while in the 1300s firearms were a rarity, not being common even on the battlefield until the late fifteenth, and not in broad use among ordinary subjects until well over a century and a half later. The proper time to begin examining laws concerning firearms, then, is about the same time that the colonies were first being settled. Prior to that the concern should be aimed at militia laws and the fact that subjects were expected to provide their own arms, a fact which assumes that most subjects had military-grade arms available — a principle that thus extends to the Second Amendment via the militia concept.

      So reaching back into British law is perfectly correct procedure. What isn’t correct is limiting the search to laws restricting firearm ownership, because that prejudices the outcome.

      • The Founders based their interpretations of British Law going back to the Magna Carta Libertatum, commonly called the “Magna Carta”, as a charter agreed to by King John of England at Runnymede, near Windsor, on 15 June 1215. The Magna Carta gave Englishmen the rights later enumerated in our Constitution. The difference being that the Founders recognized that under English Common Law, rights still originated with the king and could be granted or taken away at the will of the ruler. They recognized that King John rescinded the Magna Carta immediately after Englishmen defeated the French invasion.

        The Founders were designing a form of government which lacked the power and authority to arbitrarily extend rights to the common people, or to rescind them at will.

        The review of English Common Law was already done by the Founders. The duty of SCOTUS is simply to recognize whether something is in compliance with the Constitution, or not. To that end, SCOTUS need only research the words of the Founders. James Madison and George Mason authored the 2nd Amendment. Their words and intent still remains for us to read. They can be found in the Federalist Papers, speeches each gave, the minutes of the legislatures of the many colonies which called upon them to appear and answer questions regarding their words and intent. SCOTUS then need only recognize that, following those appearances, the colonies went on to ratify the Constitution, including the 2nd Amendment as written. Though there were dissenting voices which may be read in the Anti-Federalist Papers and other sources, they lost out to the majority which ratified the 2nd Amendment as contained within the Constitution. SCOTUS might then look at the individual constitutions of the states and see how each state constitution was copied from the federal Constitution. California’s constitution still follows the federal constitution, and includes the oath of office for public servants which reads, in part, ‘I (name) do solemnly swear or affirm that I will faithfully protect and defend the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies foreign and domestic’. Thus, every public servant who has voted to restrict the rights of the people under the 2nd amendment is guilty of violating that oath.

        Thus, there never should have been a National Firearms Act (1934), nor any other infringement of an enumerated right of the people.

        The Founders made it plain in their writings that the government has no authority to alter any enumerated right. That the sole body with such authority is the whole of the people who own the right. This requires use of the amendment process, or a Constitutional Congress.

        SCOTUS might consider that, following the end of the Revolutionary War, those who fought returned home with the firearms they had used. After the Civil War Confederate soldiers were, upon swearing an oath to the Union (aka United States) returned home with the weapons they had been issued. Soldiers who served in subsequent wars were permitted to retain their weapons prior to the NFA regardless of the ability of said weapons. Among such weapons were the BAR and Thompson. After the NFA was passed, the practice continued through WW2 and Korea, excepting the retention of fully automatic weapons. Laws were changed to allow soldiers only to keep “trophies of war”, and fully automatic weapons, such as the AKs of the Vietnam Era, had to be rendered unusable (usually barrels plugged and/or actions welded). The practice has been further restricted during operations in the middle east. Yet, the tradition exists today; Generals may retain their sidearm upon retirement “if they so desire”.

        Prohibition required an amendment to be put into practice, even though it was not one of the people’s enumerated rights. It took another amendment to end Prohibition. If an amendment was required in that case, why then would it not require the same action to alter the 2nd Amendment in any way? Both cases have been publicized as being for “public safety”. As we know from history, Prohibition never stopped the production of alcohol, nor did the NFA take firearms out of the hands of criminals.

        • Terrific submission; thank you.

          As regards the history of rights, the courts generally consider the constitution only good for finding invisible “natural, civil and human rights”. Enumerated rights are suspect and archaic, unless or until those rights can be pressed into serving the leftist, statist, criminal elements. Jurists largely view the constitution as an impediment to rational, sensible, safe, orderly progressive society. Going beyond US history and law to find a justification for a desired outcome proves an internationalist bias, with the US needing to be disciplined and forced into conformity. The entire “compelling government interest” theory puts the government at the top of the political pyramid, with everything else subservient. The founders defined all the “government compelling interests”, but smarter judges determined the founders were a bunch of uneducated hicks (same contempt the English rulers held) who made a bumbling start, but need modern intelligence to effectuate properly. Once the “compelling government interest” was permitted as jurisprudence by Congress, the nation was no longer unique, no longer the land of liberty.

    • The Ninth examined state court cases starting in I think 1830-something, when the first concealed carry ban was enacted, all the way through to the current time, including California’s various municipal laws dating back a century. what the court did NOT do–and which it expressly refused to consider–was the fact that the old cases allowed concealed carry bans because open carry was preserved. Instead, it “left to another day the question of whether there was a right to openly bear arms, concluding only that the Second Amendment did not protect a right to bear concealed firearms. It was a very slick avoidance of the real issue presented and the crux of the question, which was whether the Second guaranteed a right to carry in some manner. It also completely ignored that the Supreme court applied the Second to the States in McDonald v. Chicago, a decision that essentially moots all of those old cases that were decided under state law, not the second amendment.

      • It was a very slick avoidance of the real issue presented and the crux of the question

        Slick? Not the word I’d use. If I were to argue in open court that no law required me to wear pants, and no law required me to wear shorts, and so on for robes, kilts, sarongs etc. , therefore there should be no problem with my walking around naked in public, I doubt that’s the word other observers would use either. I’m thinking more along the lines of “obtuse”, or “deranged”.

        • To be fair to the use of slick, that’s what my friend’s dad always called us if he thought we were trying to get away with something.

    • In 1776, this country WAS England. It makes perfect sense when doing an exigetical study to consider the culture extant at the time of writing in order to determine the precise meaning of the passage. Interpreting it based on factors that don’t include cultural context leads to eisegesis, and pronouncements such as “emanations and penumbras.”

      • Except that we should look more closely at what our Founders intended, primarily at both sets of Federalist papers. They recognized that much of what British common law was comprised of, necessarily needed alteration in our new constitutional republic. Essentially, just because it existed in Britain,does not mean that’s what we intended to adopt. In many instances, it was completely contrary to what was intended.

      • Dang, now them’s some words!

        Exegesis I recognize from back in the day, but eisegesis was unfamiliar. (It’s been way too long since I studied ancient Greek; should’ve recognized eis vs. ex right away.)

        Comment sections like this keep me coming back to TTAG for more.

  5. I can pretty easily imagine that the Supremes will only support open carry under the Second Amendment and allow states to operate as restrictive a concealed carry system as they desire.

    If that is true and the Supremes side with California, Peruta should then immediately file suit to strike down open carry laws in states with highly restrictive “may issue” concealed carry licensing schemes.

    • Damn man I’d love to open carry in New Jersey lmao while not ideal, that ruling will be hella fun to take advantage of. I might get shot by an SS officer…………. uh I mean NJ cop but if I live the lawsuit will be worth it. Could really focus on my private practice.

  6. Doesn’t matter in a place like Maryland, which has for its justification of banning carriage of firearms, “The Constitution of the United States of America applies to Congress, not us.”

  7. Peruta is not a “shall issue”/”may issue” case. Peruta is a second amendment case. The best to be hoped for is that SC will declare that a state must not interfere with open carry, or concealed carry; one or the other. In other words, prohibiting both means of bearing arms is blatant infringement. However….

    Lower courts are making defying SC with impunity on “the gun issue”. SC will not be able to enforce any ruling that lower courts and states violate. For all the love of “the rule of law”, the law is what the courts determine, whenever they determine it. Imagine a law suit against a federal court. How does one win, and collect? Oh, maybe a suit against the entire federal government? Once won, and paid, how are subsequent rulings defying the SC and the entire federal government enforced? Courts cannot be made to pay costs or restitution for violating your rights in defiance of superior court orders.

    • Courts cannot be made to pay costs or restitution for violating your rights in defiance of superior court orders.

      While true, officers of the court who violate such superior court orders should be subject to prosecution for Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law. When those scumbags face personal fines in the 10s of thousands of dollars and years in prison, they will start to sing a different tune.

      • “While true, officers of the court who violate such superior court orders should be subject to prosecution for Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law.”

        Then there is the old, “Ordnung ist ordnung.” thing, which we now call “operating in good faith” defense.

  8. I can think of 5 reasons for delaying some of the bigger cases. Kennedy, Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer. And sometimes Roberts, which I guess is a sixth reason.

    • Unfortunately. It makes sense to send known quantity cases for decisions now (anything that would have fared well when Scalia was there), but anything beyond Heller is dangerous. We can be pretty sure that Scalia walked the line he did in the Heller decision because he knew it was the only way to get Kennedy. There’s no reason to think that Kennedy has suddenly decided to go further.

  9. Nope. The Peruta en banc decision is an abortion, but the fact that it’s been relisted a lot doesn’t necessarily mean anything.

    Why didn’t the Supreme Court grant cert on numerous post-MacDonald cases where the lower courts thumbed their nose at Heller/MacDonald,even while Scalia was alive? Because the pro-2A wing of the Court (Roberts, Thomas, Alito, and Scalia) knew that Kennedy would be the deciding vote in such cases, and his voting record has been getting increasingly erratic. Put simply, they didn’t want to risk the gains they’d made with Heller and MacDonald. That hasn’t changed with Gorsuch replacing Scalia, and the same dynamic exists on the Court now.

    My read is that the Court is simply delaying a cert decision on Peruta until Kennedy announces whether or not he’s retiring this term. If he announces retirement, cert on Peruta will be granted at the next conference. If not, it’ll be denied.

    • I came here to say the same thing. There have been several 2A cases that have been relisted for months before cert was ultimately denied, and here, we have a new justice who has a huge mountain of paper to review before he can intelligently opine on the propriety of granting or denying cert. Plus there is the potential Kennedy retirement to consider. so re-listing means no more, right now, than “we’ll take this up at a later time.”

    • The Peruta en banc decided the case based on the argument presented. They argued there was not a historical tradition of concealed carry, but the state bans open carry so you should allow concealed carry. The en banc simply said if there is no historical tradition then there is no right. Peruta failed to argue why it was banned and why it has changed.

      Concealed carry was banned because it was considered something only criminals would do. Law abiding citizens would only open carry. Today concealed carry is not considered something only criminals do. Concealed carry is considered the preferred method today per the CA legislature.

      SCOTUS denied the other cases for the same reason, they were decided correctly based on the arguments presented. The cases were argued as an individual right vs public safety. That is typically a loosing argument even under the first amendment. They should have presented a public safety vs public safety argument. Given that the public is a collection of individuals, public safety is really a collection of individual safety (self defense). They also fail to argue that the government does not really provide public safety.

      • I disagree with your recitation. At the time the case was in the trial court, it was still legal to openly carry an unloaded handgun (which is just asking to be robbed or harassed by the police, but that didn’t seem to matter to Governor Reagan when he signed that law in 1968). Issuance of a CCW was then (and now) discretionary with the County Sheriff, and each sheriff is therefore allowed to set his own grounds for issuance. Mr. Peruta, an exceptionally well-qulified and trained person, was denied a license under Sheriff Gore’s policy that only those persons who could demonstrate an extraordinary need to carry a concealed weapon greater than the average citizen would be issued a license. This meant of course that the average citizen would never qualify to carry a loaded firearm in public and, as Peruta argued, effectively denied the right to exercise his or her Second Amendment right. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the county on the basis that open unloaded was sufficient to allow average citizens to exercise their rights.
        The case was appealed, and while the appeal was pending, California banned open unloaded carry, which meant that was now illegal to carry a loaded firearm in any urban (“incorporated”) area of the state without a CCW. With this change in the law, the original panel concluded that there is a right to bear arms in public, and that the State could regulate the exercise of that right, allowing concealed, open or both. since California had decided to ban open carry, it was thus required to grant CCWs on a “shall issue” basis in order to guarantee the right.
        The Ninth Circuit took the case en banc, no doubt led by the (now chief) judge who had dissented from the panel decision. Peruta argued that he was seeking a right to bear arms, and did not care if it was concealed carry or open carry, as long as carry was permitted. As I described above, the en banc panel ignored this question, focused solely on the historic restrictions on concealed carry, and, without even addressing the issue of a right to bear arms in public (which right the State conceded), held simply that there was no right to carry concealed, and left to another day the issue of whether open carry must be permitted. (Such a case is pending, but unfortunately the plaintiff, Charles Nichols, is not an attorney and is representing himself. although his opening brief was well done, his rebuttal to the State’s brief was atrocious. The Ninth moves in “mysterious” ways, and I suspect that the Nichols case will not be scheduled for argument until after the Peruta petition is determined.) The narrow view of the issue presented was intentional; had the en banc panel really addressed the true issue of the scope of the right to “bear” arms, it would have found itself poised on the horns of an intolerable dilemma, as it would either have to conclude that there is no right to bear arms (an indefensible conclusion), or that there is a right and that the State had to make that right available to all citizens to exercise, a conclusion it most certainly did NOT want to reach. Since it could not effectively kill the right to bear arms, it took the next best alternative by narrowing, by logical deduction, the right to open carry. We cynics believe that, given a choice, the majority of the Ninth would agree that the right to open carry can be limited by state law to open unloaded, a choice of exercise few will willingly take.

  10. There’s been some serious talk that Kennedy will be retiring next month at the end of the term in June. Even his own clerks have spoken about this. He also scheduled a “party” a year earlier than what he would’ve normally done. Something to keep an eye.

    • Kennedy’s clerks scheduled it a year early to coincide with his 80th year (not birthday). A lot of the evidence of Kennedy’s impending retirement is reaching. The best evidence is the rumors.

  11. Premise of whole Nation was do it for yourself or it wouldn’t get done! Not so today; as the Government owes me Food, Clothing, Housing, Health care, and a monthly stipend which increases with each unwanted baby into this world as an incentive to raise more of the same you owe me’s
    California Land of Tweakers, fruits and Nuts is so twisted morally, will always blame the other guy,and having subjugated the population into a slave state by way of economic incentives, Food clothing, schooling, Housing, monthly stipend to vote Demonic-Crat,
    Latest now is the Blame game it’s the rifle Stupid, get rid of them and we have Nirvana, Constitution be damned we going to pass Anti American laws regardless! funny how that can happen when the population is 60% Illegal Alien from all tribes. who refusing to assimilate like our Ancestors did, bring their cesspools of life into our country and subvert our Laws and way of Life, in my book the Californian politicians are not American and the whole state should be cut off from the rest of the States

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *