For those of you that live in a state that is not the liberal hellscape of California, what the politicians in that state are doing in terms of curbing Second Amendment rights are something that you should be paying great attention to.
Remember, if they can do it to the folks in California they can sure as heck do it to you if the wrong people get in power in your state.
Reading comprehension must not be the strong suit of the liberal gun grabbers in California. For a refresher, here is the exact text of the Second Amendment as it appears written in the United States Constitution:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
So we’re all good right? Everyone understands that? Seems like a simple enough set of words that even the simplest among us would be able to get.
That being said, I have to ask; what part of ‘shall not be infringed’ do the liberal gun grabbers of California NOT understand?
Recently the state of California passed a law prohibiting persons within that state from purchasing a firearm of any kind more than once every thirty days. One a month. So, if you were planning on buying pistols for your family for Christmas you should have started a couple of months ago.
Thankfully, the National Rifle Association has filed a brief with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal challenging the validity of the law.
The brief argues that the law passed by anti gun sect of the state of California is unconstitutional and goes against the spirit and intention of the Second Amendment.
Last March, the state challenged a ruling by a U.S. District Court that said the law was unconstitutional.
Which leads us back to the brief filed by the NRA. The brief argues that multiple purchases of firearms per month was common all throughout the history of the United States.
It also goes on to argue that the law is too restrictive in that the state is not just limiting someone when it comes to bulk purchases (if they tried buying a hundred guns at once for example), but to even two weapons purchases in one month. Their argument is that the state of California has failed to cite an existing law limiting the number of purchases someone could make in a month.
California is effectively arguing under a “just because” provision that they think exists to use whenever they want to use it.
The problem is that they don’t quite understand that someone buying multiple firearms per month, or at least the ability to do so, is something that has happened since the beginning of this country.
When I was a kid, and my father would take me to gun shows he would go to them with the intention of buying a new pistol. When he got there, he would not only buy this pistol but he would also end up buying a hunting rifle or two that he happened to see while we were walking around.
Under this ridiculous California law, he would have been unable to make an impulse purchase of a new hunting rifle.
To the one or two liberals that I know socially, and Lord knows it is a chore talking to them some days, whenever I explain something to them I always try to use something else that they would be familiar with since guns seem to send them to the hills.
I always tell them that imagine if they passed a law that made it illegal for you to eat at a Burger King more than once a month. Now, they might not want to eat at Burger King every day, but it would be nice for them to have the option if they chose to do so.
When it comes to the anti-gun groups in this country we need to make it so they understand things in simple terms. Then we can get them to stop trying enacting ridiculous laws like this one in California.
