US 2nd Amendment Under Assault, Freedom Firearms Guns Defense

[grarpamp]

Gavin Newsomw (Gun Grabber) Launches Unconscienable
In-Terrorum and gets his ass spanked...


Federal Judge To Block "Tyrannical" California Gun Law Provision

https://www.theepochtimes.com/federal-judge-to-block-tyrannical-california-gun-law-provision_4930996.html
https://www.theepochtimes.com/t-second-amendment

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.

Judge Roger Benitez said in a San Diego courtroom on Dec. 16 that he
would soon issue an injunction halting part of a state law scheduled
to take effect on Jan. 1, according to The Associated Press. The
offending provision would require those who fight the state’s gun laws
to pay the government’s legal fees should they lose in court and was
heavily promoted by California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat with
presidential ambitions.

The case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California, is Miller v. Bonta, court file 22-cv-1446. The lawsuit
is one of many now pending in courts across the country after the U.S.
Supreme Court ruled this past June that individuals have a
constitutional right to carry firearms in public for self-defense.

The so-called loser-pays requirement would produce a “chilling effect”
that would hinder state residents from suing to vindicate their legal
rights because they would fear having to pay potentially huge lawyers’
tabs, Benitez said, agreeing with Second Amendment advocates.

“I can’t think of anything more tyrannical,” said Benitez, who was
appointed by former President George W. Bush.

Benitez previously ruled against California laws targeting gun
ownership. His defense of the Second Amendment has earned him the
nickname “St. Benitez” among gun rights activists.

In June 2021, the judge found that California’s Assault Weapons
Control Act of 1989, which prohibited so-called assault weapons such
as the popular AR-15 rifle in the state, ran afoul of the Second
Amendment. Weeks later the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit
put his ruling on hold. And in March 2019, Benitez found that the
state’s ban on large-capacity magazines included in Proposition 63 was
unconstitutional.

In the case at hand, the judge said he would not prevent the rest of
the statute from coming into force, leaving intact provisions that
prohibit the sale of certain so-called assault weapons and a ban on
guns lacking serial numbers.

The California gun law relies on a novel enforcement mechanism
inspired by a Texas law enacted last year that crowdsourced abortion
enforcement, giving individuals the right to sue over alleged
violations of the state’s fetal-heartbeat abortion law. The law
allows, for example, for someone who helped a woman obtain an unlawful
abortion by driving her to a clinic to be sued.

Newsom argues the Texas abortion law is unconstitutional but says if
the U.S. Supreme Court upholds it, then his state will rely on the
same enforcement mechanism to target Second Amendment protections.

The U.S. Supreme Court refused a request to block the Texas law and on
Dec. 10, 2021, issued a complex procedural ruling in Whole Woman’s
Health v. Jackson, remanding the case to a lower court. Then in June
of this year, the high court overturned Roe v. Wade, the 1973
precedent that held abortion was a constitutional right, leading to a
flurry of activity in state legislatures and legal challenges to
abortion laws in courts across the nation.

In court on Dec. 16, Benitez chided lawyers for the state of
California who said the state does not intend to enforce the legal
fees rules unless the Texas law survives legal scrutiny.

    “We’re not in a kindergarten sandbox. It’s not about, ‘Mommy he
did this to me so I should be able to do this to him,’” Benitez
reportedly said.

The Epoch Times reached out repeatedly to both sides for comment over
the weekend.

Bradley Benbrook and Stephen Duvernay, attorneys for the California
gun law challengers, and lawyers for the state, Elizabeth K. Watson
and Thomas A. Willis, did not reply as of press time. The California
Gun Rights Foundation, which is fighting the law, also did not reply
to a request for comment.

But lawyer Joshua Dale, who represents a San Diego area gun club that
is involved in the lawsuit, told Benitez the law would put undue
pressure on would-be litigants.

“I’m terrified of this law,” Dale said in court, according to the AP.

“It would be absolutely devastating to pay the state’s attorney fees.
I’ve got kids. I’ve got a mortgage. I could never pay $50,000 or
$100,000 without emptying my 401(k) account.”