Think about that latimes.com headline: The Supreme Court does public safety a favor by rejecting a California gun-law challenge. The Supreme Court is supposed to protect the United States Constitution. Not dole out “favors” like some kind of mafia boss on his daughter’s wedding day. But that’s how people who disrespect our Constitution roll. People like columnist Scott Martelle:

The decision to leave the California concealed-carry laws alone is a win for public safety, and for those who believe society would be better off with fewer guns — both in the home and on the street.

But not the Constitution, which states “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Here’s another relevant quote (misattributed to Benjamin Franklin): Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”

The democratic process in California has devoured its residents’ liberty: their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. And it’s now been aided and abetted by the highest court in the land.

At some point, the Supreme Court will hear a case that could — not to say will — direct local and state governments to restore all Americans’ un-infringed right to keep and bear arms outside the home.

Until that time comes, we must use the ballot box to signal our disgust with politicians who kowtow to the self-righteous rabble who place a mistaken idea of public safety above our liberty…in California, Maryland, New York, Massachusetts, Hawaii, Illinois and everywhere else where the forces of darkness gather to take what is ours by right. And law.

22 Responses to LA Times : “The Supreme Court does public safety a favor by rejecting a California gun-law challenge”

  1. If Trump gets to appoint two more justices, then we’ll see positive results on the Second Amendment, but not before.

    The plus side for that is there are three fairly elderly justices on the court now, so there’s a decent chance it will happen. If he gets to appoint replacements for all three, then we’re pretty much a lock for some good rulings.

    • Exactly. As it is right now, any Second Amendment cases will be a 4-4 split with Kennedy as the deciding vote. Not a great scenario.

      • Hopefully he throws in the towel before too much longer (like the rumor suggests). It still would be a toss up depending on his replacement, but definitely better chances.

        I would wager that the two other conservative justices voted again granting certiorari under the fear of having exactly that happen. I also think it may have been why it was relisted so much, possibly waiting on Kennedy to make up his mind and possibly get a replacement.

        • I’ve often wondered if it was Roberts who was the 2A waffler and not Kennedy.

        • I’m not putting Roberts on our side. That’s why I say two appointments. Thomas, Gorsuch, Alito, New Trump Appointee #1, and New Trump Appointee #2.

          If Roberts feels like joining that coalition, great. But that’s the group I see making positive strides for gun rights.

    • You think? The conservatives already have a majority and the court decided not to hear this case. I’m not sure powerful conservatives really care too much about the gun rights of us redneck nobodies. They’re just playing us for our votes. Now that conservatives are safely in power, I very much doubt we’ll see gun laws get much looser. What we’ll get from Trump justices are decisions which help the very rich get even richer so that generations of their future offspring will never have to do an honest day’s work.

  2. Did anyone expect the headline to be any different from the big city liberal newspaper? Especially a California newspaper.

  3. “Forces of Darkness” is left, right? “You will know them by their fruits”.

    I can now understand, but only as a vague memory from long ago, how people that think of themselves as good people can still be really bad.

    I once believed that abortion was a “choice”, instead of murder, and I once believed the carrying of a personal firearm was completely out of bounds and that laws outlawing such obviously bizarre and just plain insane behavior was not just appropriate, but absolutely necessary. So I would have celebrated this decision by the USSC.

    So while I don’t hate those that believe as I once did, I also understand that they, as I once was, are forces of chaos, of darkness, of just plain, outright evil; because while we had good intentions in believing as we did, the end results of these beliefs inevitably leads to chaos, to darkness, to mass murder and death, which is really just plain….evil.

  4. California is not a good place for someone who won’t tow any party line. But neither is the country at large these days.

    I’m not happy about being stuck here indefinitely due to a spouse’s career path. It’s turns out for better or worse might mean a move not just to California, but one of the most depressing parts of California.

    That said, I probably wouldn’t be any happier in Texas or the deep south.

    No matter where you go, there’s some group in power that wants to trample personal freedom.

  5. Will someone smarter than me, (only have a commie kalli education) explain, how I’m now safer as I’m being attacked by a criminal or nut job that has a effing Gun, knife, baseball bat, golf club, fists/feet etc etc etc? I sure as poo, don’t feel safer. Being armed with only a smile, safety pin, melted snowflakes and some play dough. WTF???

  6. When “public safety” trumps everything, where does it stop?

    If police could detain and search anyone for any reason or no reason, that would improve public safety. So why are we not doing it?

    If all males were required to submit a DNA sample prior to puberty, we could improve public safety (reducing rape). So why are we not doing it?

    If all parents were required to submit to surprise inspections of their home to determine whether or not they were providing proper nutrition/calories for their children, that would improve public safety. So why are we not doing it?

    If all parents were required to continuously operate multiple surveillance cameras (a la “nanny cameras”) in their home so that government agents could watch at any time for foul play, that would improve public safety. So why are we not doing it?

    Nebulous, blanket pronouncements that supposedly improve public safety and handily trounce fundamental individual rights are heinous and we should not tolerate them … nor the people who promulgate them.

    • Please, don’t give the CA legislature any ideas. I’m sure the ruling class here would absolutely love to have a DNA sample on file of every “citizen” and reserve the right to randomly inspect anyone’s living quarters.

  7. The courts have done this for years in order to destroy the Second Amendment. The simply refuse to rule on a known unconstitutional law and it has not only been in regards to guns either. The Courts rule on 4 premises, 1, their own privileges and 2, their own safety and 3, they rule to enhance their absolute power over every one and 4, they rule according to public opinion in order to stay in power. The Constitution to them is meaningless and they know that because they are a dictatorship they can and do get away with any ruling they make. Their own corrupt history has proven it over and over again.

    • Okay, wait… Are you the same Cisco Kid who argues at length in favor of just about every government interference with personal liberty that comes down the pike?

      Not that I disagree with you here…this just seems a bit inconsistent with prior views.

  8. The people of the Democratic Republic of Social Justice and Safe Spaces need the Supremes to vote on a case that digs deep down into the crusted effluvia of years of lower court rulings that have obscured the plain English meaning of the words of the 2nd Amendment, and return the power of the people’s civil right to be armed as a hedge against that rainy day scenario. We need this to wipe away the accumulating anti gun, anti American gun control laws of this state of California and put a massive foot to the ass of the Democrat political opportunists who have pinned their ambitions to actively working against us, the people of this state, and the rest of the states of this Union.

  9. If the Federal government wants to improve “Gun Safety” then they need to do it the way the Constitution tells them to.
    Create militia training system for the States to use on all the Militia, “Organized” [“in service”, “Enrolled under Military discipline”] and “Unorganized” [the rest of us].
    Since that is the only way they can affect training in weapon safety, tactics, and use.

    Since they can’t infringe at all.. on Carry or Ownership.. of any weapon up to and including current military issue personal use weapons.

Leave a Reply

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