The gun grabbers are shaking in their boots, yet they must continue with their push for gun control or risk political humiliation.
I have reported several times that I believe the Bruen case will have effects that will reach far into the future. Due to Judge Clarence Thomas’ written decision that included a requirement for gun laws to meet “historical tradition,” we may want to get ready for a pro-gun wave of wins in courts across America.
Several cases are using the “Historical tradition” precedent set in place by Judge Thomas in the Bruen case. Bad actors and gun grabbers are beginning to recognize that their anti-gun fate will be sealed and that it will be only a matter of time until most unconstitutional gun laws will be unwound. So, what is a good gun grabber to do when they know lawsuits are coming for them and their unconstitutional gun laws?
Well, in the case of Gavin Newsom, he is trying to prevent the lawsuits from taking place by scaring potential plaintiffs with heavy costs if they lose their case. The portion of the law in question heavily promoted by Newsom would require those who fight the State’s gun laws, to pay the government’s legal fees should they lose in court.
Attorney Joshua Dale who represents a San Diego area gun club that is involved in a lawsuit said, “I could never pay $50,000 or $100,000 without emptying my 401(k) account.”
According to Epoch News, A federal judge said he will block a “tyrannical” provision in an incoming California gun law because it would have the “chilling effect” of discouraging people from challenging the statute in court.
The case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, is Miller v. Bonta, and is one of many now pending in courts across the country after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in NYSRPA v. Bruen this past June in favor of the right to carry a firearm in public.
According to the Associated Press, on December 16, Judge Roger Benitez said in a San Diego courtroom that he would issue an injunction halting part of a state law which is scheduled to take effect on Jan. 1. Benetez has previously shown support for the 2nd Amendment in other cases by ruling against the state’s overreaching “Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989” and magazine restrictions. Although the judge said he would leave in place some California gun restrictions, he is against the “pay if you lose” provision as it is a deterrent to lawsuits that may come down against unconstitutional gun laws.
Is this an example of the gun grabbers realizing that they are about to experience the biggest pro 2A wave in America? Are they desperate and scared of the lawsuits they know are coming?
The 2nd Amendment is not a privilege. It’s your right.
