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.
Nick Fandos at the NYT is probably bummed law abiding citizens and republican security teams get to have large magazines while the Bernie bros camped out at the open field where NYT told them to hunt Republicans gets a duffle bag full guns and illegal high capacity magazines.
And it was intended to restrict Federal not State power
Are you retarded? Or just trolling?
>he's Spanish from Cuban decent
I've always found the Cubans to be decent people as well.
Member when? Those dark days in the middle of Obama's tenure, when liberals had the ear and voice of the most powerfull office in the world. Gun grabs, etching away of liberties, and the constant money redistribution.
The tide is turning. The dark is gone. Trump is not perfect but he is the perfect man for the job today.
Idk what you mean by incorporate, but maybe you never heard of Inumerated Powers the 10th amendment (part of the bill of rights) but it specifically states rights not forbidden to states or reserved for the federal government default to the states.
We didn't have incorporation up until the early 1900s
Why the fuck wouldn't you want to limit both state and federal authority?
Sorry the 10th amendment doesn't use the word enumerated (I misspelled the first time) but it outlines the powers granted to which section of government.
Giving the Feds the power to limit state authority is not limiting their authority
Fuck you, it was written and remains to protect the rights of the individual against any government power.
They wanted to limit both state and federal authority (hence the first few amendments being liberty clauses for citizens) but they wanted states to be deciding most things, its tied to us being a republic not a democracy, they were highly against mob rule or a large authoritarian central government.
Enabling the individual to not have their rights violated by either a state or federal government is though you fucking idiot.
California allows direct propositions to their constitution.
Start ballot drive to legalize up to 50 round clips out of spite.
Remember, is a state that passed prop 8.
>what is the supremacy clause
I'm aware of that, but why anyone is against incorporation of the Bill of Rights to states boggles my mind, if they're arguing from a liberty perspective.
its a never ending battle. Left vs Right. The dance continues.
Cuban Americans hate commies more than anyone.
Thread is loosing steam, so I'll close off with the 2nd Amend.
Cheers! and again Bravo.
My beef is that the 14th amendment has been used as a battering ram on states. Say what you will about the outcomes of Windsor and Obergefell, but folks should be war of how the conclusion was derived. With that being said, CA needs to be smacked down good and hard on guns. While this injunction is a relief, I'm more than certain that the bloody 9th circuit will uphold the CA law when it goes en banc and I'm not certain that SCOTUS will take the case. I'm more hopeful about open carry bans being struck down given there is a strong chance of two open carry cases coming out of two different circuits with likely very different rulings.
That's already happened in California.
I've seen women claim that the constitution isn't valid because no women or POC helped write it and that its time to scrap it and start a new one.
Heaven help us...
>States are allowed to ratify and enforce laws that violate the Constitution because "states' rights"
Funny how this gets constantly applied to 2A but never to 14A, 15A, 19A or anything else in the Bill of Rights. Really gets my colonists revolutionizing.