Boise, ID – Attorney General Raúl Labrador led a coalition of 27 states in filing an Amicus Curiae brief in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in support of the Second Amendment, asking the Court to affirm the lower court’s decision to enjoin California’s unconstitutional Assault Weapons Control Act (AWCA) in Miller v. Bonta.
For 34 years, the AWCA has deprived Californians of their Second Amendment rights through arbitrary and often cosmetic-based bans on the ownership, possession, sale, and transfer of hundreds of firearm types. These firearms were legal before the ban, and are still in lawful, common use across the nation. The Supreme Court’s decisions in Bruen and Heller have confirmed that every American has a pre-existing right to keep and bear arms, and the plain text of the Second Amendment protects weapons California bans.
The impact of California’s ACWA has also extended beyond its borders—unjustly impacting citizens and firearm businesses in Amici states and across the nation who are barred from exercising their rights to engage in lawful related commerce with California.
3 replies on “Attorney General Labrador Leads Nationwide Fight Against California’s Unconstitutional Assault Weapons Ban”
TODAY’S ASSALT WEAPONS BANS are more fall out from the IMPOTENT SECOND AMENDMENT.
America was sold down the river when the 18th-century founding fathers replaced Biblical responsibilities (based upon the moral law of God) for Enlightenment rights, and nothing demonstrates it better than the Second Amendment.
Think about it: The Amendment WITH the wording “shall not be infringed” is the MOST infringed, licensed, and limited Amendment of the entire twenty seven. Furthermore, a future generation of our posterity is likely to see the Second Amendment whittled away entirely or repealed altogether. This is inherent nature and danger of optional Enlightenment rights versus non-optional Biblical responsibilities, such as the following:
“Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a two-edged sword [or today’s equivalent] in their hand … this honor have all his saints. Praise ye Yah.” (Psalm 149:6-9)
“But if any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house [beginning with spiritual and physical protection], he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” (1 Timothy 5:8)
Which is more potent: 1) An optional right, or 2) A non-optional responsibility?
Which is more likely to be infringed, licensed, and ultimately abolished altogether?
Which did the pre-Second Amendment Americans look to for their authority to bear arms, with little or nor infringement?
For more, listen to “The Second Amendment: A Knife in a Gunfight,” delivered at the Springfield, Missouri Firearms and Freedom Symposium, at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/#FeaturedMessages
At this same location, you will also find a radio interview Larry Pratt (Executive Director of Gun Owners of America) conducted with me on this same subject. I think you’ll find Mr. Pratt’s remarks especially interesting.
See also online Chapter 12 “Amendment 2: Constitutional vs. Biblical Self-Defense” of “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt12.html
As a conservative journalist who was fired from a small-town Idaho newspaper for being too conservative, it never ceases to amaze me how good, honorable conservatives so uniformly fall into the trap of of using communist pejoratives instead of correct terminology.
There is no such thing as an “assault rifle”. That term is a communist pejorative invented for the sole purpose of demonizing HOMELAND DEFENSE RIFLES.
It is well past time for conservatives to stop being spineless, mindless, sheep. It is time for conservatives to at least have the courage to use the language correctly.
“For 34 years, the AWCA has deprived Californians of their Second Amendment rights through . . . ”
Correction:
For 34 years, the AWCA has deprived Californians of their GOD-GIVEN right to self defense as enumerated in the United States Constitution through . . .
I sure do wish Conservatives would start using the language correctly instead of constantly falling victim to the communist newspeak.