Judge Blocks California Magazine Ban

[Wilderness 1864]

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017...-magazine-ban/

California Liberals were go ballistic, so to speak. This must be a case of temporary sanity.

[bogey1]

Que the mass shooting, 3, 2, 1...

[tlnzz1]

It would seem at least one Judge gets it.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/ex-post-facto-law

ex post facto law definition

A law that makes illegal an act that was legal when committed, increases the penalties for an infraction after it has been committed, or changes the rules of evidence to make conviction easier. The Constitution prohibits the making of ex post facto law.

[middlefinger]

[RenoV8]

It would seem at least one Judge gets it.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/ex-post-facto-law

ex post facto law definition

A law that makes illegal an act that was legal when committed, increases the penalties for an infraction after it has been committed, or changes the rules of evidence to make conviction easier. The Constitution prohibits the making of ex post facto law.

If what this judge says is correct, why is it other States have not followed this same legal direction? Odd, isn't it?

[tacogewehr]

I love how they always blame the nebulous "gun lobby", as if it is just some body of people in shadows that exist in a vacuum for no reason other than to fight against laws that will allegedly make life safer and we just nod our heads and go along with it. It's insulting because it makes it sound like we're all mindless and just nod and agree with whatever the NRA does, probably because they think we're as stupid as they are and just listen to whatever a power at be tells us. And further more, I am tired of the term "lobby" being hurled at causes the left deems "bad" whereas anyone that supports a cause of the left is an "activist".

That rant aside, good, glad they found a judge with at least some sense left in that state. Funny how people always try to decry arguments about gun control leading to more gun control and more infringing on our rights as a slippery slope argument, yet laws like these in California prove that is exactly what happens and it's disgusting it even had to go as far as it has.

[Hawk]

If they want to make possession illegal, they need to offer a buy back at retail price. Funded directly from the pockets of the CA legislators in favor of the ban.

[Justin2012]

I'm glad that Californians who are trapped in that state have a minor victory at last; hopefully this will be a turning point for second amendment rights in that state.

[tlnzz1]

If what this judge says is correct, why is it other States have not followed this same legal direction? Odd, isn't it?

Not really that odd. Judges can rule any way they want in there own court room. That's why they are overruled by a higher court. Nothing is ever really settled until the Supreme Court rules on the issue. Even then, they sometimes reverse there ruling. Too many Judges trying to make law from the bench.

[TaePo]

"...and overturn the clear will of the California voters..."

One. We are not a democracy! We are a representative republic just to prevent such mob rule.
Two. The Bill of Rights mention, "...shall not be infringed." What is a limitation or ban but infringement?
Three. We can use whatever means necessary to defeat it; if we choose to do so.

This press release is clearly propaganda and is quite misleading. Californians and others who believe this ought to hang their heads in shame!