A very good point. And I agree. Punitive rulings need to be in place. Let's look at this. If say, Gun Owners of America filed a lawsuit against CA for the unconstititional law they passed, would they have standing? Having standing is the party that's injured and harmed by the law. IMHO, it would be the firearm manufacturers and gun shops that sell them would possibly have standing.. But, can the manufacturers and gun shops prove they were harmed and injured? The trends for higher firearm sales seems to suggest otherwise.
Secondly, if a lawsuit did survive the 'having standing' criteria, can a law passed 30+ years ago, be challenged with punitive action? Why did it take 30+ years to finally get a ruling? Would CA appeal this to the Supreme Court? There's a good likelihood CA will claim they established precedent and would hope to get it overturned.
I'm on-board with your thing about going after politicians that pass unconstitutional laws, but I also don't see an easy path to do it. I guess another law needs to be passed to hold politicians accountable..... Wait, I thought their oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States was suppose to that. This is where the Brunson case again becomes so relevant.
These are valid questions needing to be asked. Are they grounds for injury? Or something else? Maybe, the injury is from a conspiracy of violating ones rights? Racketeering? What does GOA say in regards to this? I'd like to hear what their experience is. For some reason it seems the NRA hasn't really been in this arena fighting for our 2nd Amendment rights.
I recall being told by a lawyer that going after the government in a lawsuit was considered a career ending endeavor. This was after reading about a high-speed police chase that ended with causing an innocent party to be gravely injured during the pursuit.
Yes. Passing laws repugnant to the Constitution -- even trying to put them forth -- should yield removal from office at minimum, and harsh sentencing from there.
So what happens to those who passed the law? Nothing.
We need consequences for politicians who pass or attempt to pass unconstitutional laws.
A very good point. And I agree. Punitive rulings need to be in place. Let's look at this. If say, Gun Owners of America filed a lawsuit against CA for the unconstititional law they passed, would they have standing? Having standing is the party that's injured and harmed by the law. IMHO, it would be the firearm manufacturers and gun shops that sell them would possibly have standing.. But, can the manufacturers and gun shops prove they were harmed and injured? The trends for higher firearm sales seems to suggest otherwise.
Secondly, if a lawsuit did survive the 'having standing' criteria, can a law passed 30+ years ago, be challenged with punitive action? Why did it take 30+ years to finally get a ruling? Would CA appeal this to the Supreme Court? There's a good likelihood CA will claim they established precedent and would hope to get it overturned.
I'm on-board with your thing about going after politicians that pass unconstitutional laws, but I also don't see an easy path to do it. I guess another law needs to be passed to hold politicians accountable..... Wait, I thought their oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States was suppose to that. This is where the Brunson case again becomes so relevant.
When purchasing ammo in CA, I’m told they scan your drivers license and charge $1.00 each time “for the background check”.
These are valid questions needing to be asked. Are they grounds for injury? Or something else? Maybe, the injury is from a conspiracy of violating ones rights? Racketeering? What does GOA say in regards to this? I'd like to hear what their experience is. For some reason it seems the NRA hasn't really been in this arena fighting for our 2nd Amendment rights.
I recall being told by a lawyer that going after the government in a lawsuit was considered a career ending endeavor. This was after reading about a high-speed police chase that ended with causing an innocent party to be gravely injured during the pursuit.
If you need permission to exercise your rights, then you don’t have rights.
Brunson or Bruen?
Brunson v. Adams Case number 22-380.
Yes. Passing laws repugnant to the Constitution -- even trying to put them forth -- should yield removal from office at minimum, and harsh sentencing from there.
Bring back tar and feathering for rogue politicians
I don't know why this ever went out of style.
Needs to be public hangings for government officials violating the constitution.
"We need consequences for politicians who pass or attempt to pass unconstitutional laws."
The People are supposed to take their job away...