A federal judge said he will prohibit a “tyrannical” clause in a forthcoming California gun bill because it would have the “chilling effect” of stopping people from challenging the statute in court. And if the Democrats are consistent, this was the intention of the bill. Democrats no longer want to hear the grievances of the electorate. They know better than them.
According to The Associated Press, Judge Roger Benitez announced in a San Diego courtroom on December 16 that he will soon issue an injunction delaying part of a state law set to take effect on January 1. The offending section would oblige anyone who disputes the state’s gun regulations to pay the government’s legal bills should they lose in court and was actively championed by California Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat with presidential ambitions. Of course Newsome supported the bill. He’s a tyrant like many other Democrat leaders in this country. Remember when he got caught at the French laundry with a bunch of friends and they were all sitting around the table with no masks on and committing to no social distancing and yet he wrote orders that would punish anyone else who did the same? That’s the sign of a tyrant.
Miller v. Bonta, court file 22-cv-1446, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The complaint is one of hundreds that have been filed in courts across the country since the United States Supreme Court ruled in June that people had a constitutional right to carry firearms in public for self-defense.
The so-called loser-pays clause would generate a “chilling effect” that would deter state residents from suing to enforce their legal rights because they would fear having to pay potentially hefty lawyers’ costs, Benitez said, agreeing with Second Amendment proponents. Again, that was the intention of the bill.
“I can’t think of anything more tyrannical,” Benitez, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush, remarked. Good for this judge. He understands the nature of constitutional rights, specifically the Second Amendment.
Benitez previously ruled against California regulations targeting gun ownership. His Second Amendment advocacy has earned him the moniker “St. Benitez” among gun rights activists.
VISIT OUR YOUTUBE CHANNELThe judge ruled in June 2021 that California’s Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989, which barred so-called assault weapons like the popular AR-15 rifle, violated the Second Amendment. After several weeks, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stayed his decision. In March 2019, Benitez ruled that the state’s Proposition 63 prohibition on large-capacity magazines was unconstitutional.
In the instance at hand, the judge said he would not block the rest of the statute from entering into force, keeping intact clauses that prohibit the sale of some so-called assault weapons and a ban on guns lacking serial numbers. I disagree with the judge there because I can’t find anywhere in the Second Amendment where it talks about serial numbers. And there’s never been an amendment to the constitution that adds serial numbers to the Second Amendment.
This new enforcement technique was inspired by a Texas law established last year that crowdsourced abortion enforcement, giving anyone the ability to sue over suspected violations of the state’s fetal-heartbeat abortion ban. The statute enables, for example, for someone who aided a lady to obtain an unlawful abortion by driving her to a clinic to be sued.
Newsom contends the Texas abortion law is illegal but says if the US Supreme Court supports it, then his state will use the same enforcement mechanism to attack Second Amendment freedoms. That’s because Newsom is a bonehead. There is bone where his brain should be. While the right to keep and bear arms is embedded into the Bill of Rights, abortion does not appear in the constitution. You can read the constitution, holding it up to the light, upside down, and you will not find abortion in there. He’s just a nasty tyrant with presidential ambitions.
The United States Supreme Court denied a plea to halt the Texas statute and issued a convoluted procedural opinion in Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson on December 10, 2021, remanding the matter to a lower court. The Supreme Court then reversed Roe v. Wade, the 1973 precedent that declared abortion was a constitutional right, in June of this year, sparking a frenzy of activity in state legislatures and legal challenges to abortion restrictions around the country.
On December 16, Benitez chastised lawyers for the state of California who stated that the state does not intend to enforce the legal fees rules until the Texas statute is upheld in court.
“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,’” according to Benitez. I love this guy!
Lawyer Joshua Dale, who represents a San Diego-area gun club participating in the litigation, warned Benitez that the rule would place an unnecessary strain on potential litigants.
According to the Associated Press, Dale told the court, “I’m terrified of this law.”
“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.”
Again, that was the intentions of the bill; to intimidate American citizens from questioning the state. Sit down and shut up, peasant!
Thankfully, the federal bench has at least one judge who has read and understands the US constitution.
