That line in there, sends chills of joy for our Founding Fathers.
> "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.
>Constitution is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.
SAY IT WITH ME.
Screaming, hysterical liberals demanding the end of the constitution in 3...2...1...
if north korea would just nuke LA CA would become a red state, light red, but still red.
This is the Judge that California liberals are probably going to protest about. Problem is: he's Spanish from Cuban decent, so they have to temper their lamenting with "not all Cubans".
Bravo for his bravery in the face of Liberal California Tyranny. Bravo.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Roger is fucking based, I guarantee it.
STILL not tired of winning
Of course its a "minority" judge from some shit hole commie country that actually respects the Constitution.
>chills of joy for our Founding Fathers.
Our founding fathers never intended to incorporate the Bill of Rights to the States
The same Leftists who ran to the courts to get Prop. 8 (gay marriage ban passed by California voters in 2008) and Prop. 187 (anti-illegal referendum overwhelmingly supported by Californians in 1994) overturned by Democratic-appointed judges will now cry about this too.
What? The bill of rights was written to appease anti-federalists who were against the constitution.