On November 26, Kamala Harris, the AG of California, filed a request for an en banc review of the decision on 12 November to deny her request to intervene in the case. From campaign-archive1.com (Michel & Associates):
The AG’s latest request to the court comes after the court denied the AG’s and several gun ban advocacy groups’ requests to join the case once they learned Sheriff Gore had decided not to appeal the case any further. The anti-gun rights groups have also filed a similar request for en banc review of the Ninth Circuit's denial of their requests to intervene in the case.This is another move by the AG to fight Peruta at every possible turn. I have read the Order Denying Motions to Intervene. Like the rest of the Peruta decisions, the order is clear and logical. But then, I am not a lawyer.
It is easy to see why the disarmists are desperate to stop implementation of Peruta. Once Peruta is implemented, hundreds of thousands of California shall issue permits will be issued. Once that many voters, (because virtually every permit holder is a reliable voter) have permits, there is no putting the shall issue genie back in the bottle.
California is the last hope for disarmists to achieve a sort of stalemate for the implementation of the second amendment. If they lose Peruta, California and Hawaii are lost. Once California and Hawaii are lost, only a tiny remnant of "may issue" states remain on the East coast, surrounding New York, where the entire sham of modern "may issue" started with the infamous Sullivan law; a law that was designed to protect organized crime.
In that situation, national reciprocity will become a fact, if it has not already. It is hard to believe that the citizens of New York will be reconciled to a situation where everyone in the nation who wishes to, will be able to exercise their second amendment rights in New York, *except* for citizens of New York and the other five states in the North East coastal cluster.
I think Peruta will stand. The logic is clear, the facts are clear, the Constitution is clear. Much of rural California is already effectively shall issue.
But ideologues on the left seems to hate the idea of armed citizens to its core, even though that hatred is irrational and is an enormous political liability.
Definition of disarmist
©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch
Posts
1 comment:
The hatred is perfectly rational, from the POV of the Political Left. Armed citizens are citizens it is harder to spook. Citizens less likely to tolerate agents of the State kicking their doors in a 2am. Citizens more likely to look at seizure of property and rousting of passers-by and ask "Why, exactly, are we tolerating this?". Citizens more likely to say "To hell with the surveillance State, if Terrorists attack the local mall, we'll shoot them and leave the cops to sort out the dead."
The Political Left made a great mistake at the end of WWI. They assumed that The Workers would go along with the plans of their Betters. But The Workers had just had several years of being lined up, counted off, and marched all over creation. Unlike their fellows in Europe, they weren't dealing with a shattered economy, and artillery plowed countryside. They didn't want German Worker Housing, Public Transportation, and Community Center classes in Morris Dancing and whatnot. They wanted a house in Levittown and a car with tail fins, and they dropped the Left like a draftee getting rid of a live grenade.
The Left is still getting over that. They know that a self-sufficient populace won't put up with their meddling. And so they are absolutely DESPERATE to keep the citizenry dependent, in any way they can.
Few things are less dependent on a Benevolent State than an armed man.
Post a Comment