◀Previous Post
Next Post▶

kamala-harris1

“The opposition spends an inordinate amount of time discussing the evolution of general handgun legislation in the early 1900s. It cites zero legislative history, or any history at all, directly addressing the advertising ban at issue here. Yet, as the Attorney General suggests, some evidence of the general purposes behind the 1923 law may ‘provide clues’ as to why the legislature wanted to ban retailers from depicting handguns on store-front placards. It turns out that a principal reason for the adoption of the 1923 legislation, which included the speech restriction here, was . . .

disarming immigrants. The opposition cites a newspaper article in which the president of the Sacramento Rifle and Revolver Club—whose support the opposition found noteworthy… —hailed the law, but omits the reason for his enthusiasm: its ‘salutary effect in checking tong wars among the Chinese and vendettas among our people who are of Latin descent.'” – Plaintiffs’ response in Tracy Rifle and Pistol v. Kamala Harris [via utsandiego.com]

 

 

◀Previous Post
Next Post▶

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

32 COMMENTS

  1. What, no comment on the physical attraction of California’s AG? I think that’s a first…

  2. So she is for racism as long as it’s against Asians or Latinos?
    Purple, because ice cream doesn’t have bones.

      • Thing is, it is well known that gun control has it’s start in racism. The dems back then started it, and I believe are still for it for the same reason.

        • Basically every gun control law was put in place for racist and/or classist reasons. They were all to keep minorities or poor people from being able to legally own firearms. No surprise here. Can’t show pictures of guns in your shop windows? Why not? Because then illiterate people would know where to get them, and we can’t have that. Make sure they can read, own property, and charge a ‘poll tax’ to get certifications to buy the guns and register them annually, too. Sure. Throw in some expensive, mandatory training as well. Plus safe storage laws. And also why not start a “roster” of approved handguns to make sure cheap handguns can’t be sold in the state? Make sure the only approved ones are nice and expensive, so poor people aka minorities can’t afford ’em even if they could pay for all the taxes and fees and licensing and training…

        • I don’t believe that’s well known at all. I didn’t even know it myself until about five years ago. I learned of it from an NRA magazine. I found it so shocking, not so much that it’s true, but how flagrantly, even unapologetically, true it is. None of that is taught in schools, even college U.S. history courses, nor talked about in pop culture.

          So I went and did a whole lot of reading on the subject, not trying to disprove it, but certainly with the expectation of finding that it was exaggerated. It wasn’t. It was actually even worse and more openly racist than I thought.

          I expected maybe some disparate impact, like how black males have shorter life expectancies than white females. So white females enjoy much greater Social Security payments, at black men’s expense, from an already insolvent system. But the racist origins of gun control laws wasn’t simply roundabout racist like that. They’re just out and proud racist.

      • One of her aids, or somebody had to figure out when and why the law is there. She may not have known last week, but you can bet she knows now.
        It just baffles me how the left can be so anti-gun they won’t even allow a picture of one. This is just pop-tart crazy.

  3. Yes, she is physically attractive. But, her thought process on gun control, and likely politics in general, is very unattractive. Pretty much trumps any physical attraction in my book. Kind of like if you start talking to a very attractive woman and after a minute or two you figure out she is a total idiot. Might be OK for a one night stand but sure would not want to live with someone like that. Even waking up in the morning and trying to talk to her would be an ordeal.

  4. The whole “No they’re the real racists!” never gets anywhere (even if it’s true, like above). It’s just sad politically-correct judo.

  5. So wait…Dan you didn’t make up the Harris beauty comment? It was Obama? Apparently I missed that one by a mile. Even more hilarious now. But then again, if I had to stare at Michelle everyday, even my coffee mug would become attractive

    • What kind of troll are you???
      The only type of gun cotroll needed is a steady hand, good stance and smooth trigger pull after acquiring a good sight picture.
      The civilian disarmament douchbags are only interested in CONTROL. The only group they are interested in protecting is themselves.

  8. I would say good looking anti 2A, lawful self defense denier, not worthy of the title lady from HELL.

  9. There are any number of weapons banned in California in 1923 simply because of their prevalent use by minorities, including switchblades, butterfly knives, and gravity knives (Hispanics) and nan-chucks (orientals).
    For those not familiar with this case, the State of California bans the display of firearms pictures on business signs or in shop windows. The State defends this nearly 200 year old law on a “public safety” rationale. I haven’t read the briefs, but the restraint on commercial speech seems to be illegitimate, despite the allowable restrictions on commercial speech compared to first amendment political/protest speech.

  10. And don’t forget that the Hearst newspaper “empire” in California was one of the big interests pushing FDR to put California’s Japanese-American population into “relocation” centers during WWII. This was via Executive Order 9066, signed by that paragon of liberalism, Franklin D. Roosevelt. And for a classic racist commentary on this, see Eleanor Roosevelt’s article “A Challenge to American Sportsmanship”, reprinted in http://www.oldmagazinearticles.com (search for “Eleanor Roosevelt on the Japanese-American Internment Camps”). She also has some really interesting thoughts on the whole concept of allowing immigration of “people who do not speak our language or share our culture.”

    Racism has deep leftist roots in California and America.

  11. It has been a long, exhausting couple of weeks for me, so forgive me if I am missing something obvious. The title of the article says “Part MCMLXVII,” but talks about a 1923 law. MCMLXVII translates to 1967. Verify here: http://romannumerals.babuo.com/MCMLXVII-roman-numerals

    Or is it just that we have soooo many quotes regarding the racist (& elitist, classist, etc) roots of gun control?

    Either way, this woman exemplifies many of the problems with modern America – she’s good looking, and therefore the general public (or at least, the unthinking portion) is inclined to let her have her way. Huge segments of our population no longer try to think for themselves, and tend to worship men &/or women who happen to have the genetic good luck to be good-looking. For me, beauty is as beauty does. (Nod to Forrest G.)

  12. So I’m suppose to trust another pretty white liberal from California?
    S. I. Hayakawa or senator Sam as many people called him told my senior U.S. government class California was the most racist state in america. As a Japanese American he may have had a point but thousands of german and Italian Americans had their civil rights stolen and were sent to american concentration camps in Texas and the Dakotas.

    Jim Crow laws were not in California. That did not prevent the loss of civil rights for blacks, asians, or anyone else.

    In the racist south the Deacons for Defense were allowed to keep their guns. In liberal California the black panthers gun rights were restricted.

Comments are closed.