We’ve gotten so used to leftist judges blocking the executive orders of Donald Trump as well as conservative legislation, that we’re shocked when one rules consistent with our Constitution. There are conservative judges out there who revere the original intent of the authors of our Constitution and its Bill of Rights. And with President Trump in the White House, there are likely to be a lot more in the future as he makes judicial appointments during his tenure.
California may overwhelming be a liberal state, but federal judges are not appointed by the states, and are not answerable to state governments. They are part of the the federal courts, so when they make a ruling that the state’s leaders do not like, there’s nothing they can do other than make their voices heard, or, depending on the circumstances, participate in an appeal of the decision.
Consistent with its liberal bias, the state of California is strongly opposed to Second Amendment rights. Hence, the legislators actively pursue legislation to infringe on those rights as guaranteed by the Constitution. Nevertheless, a federal judge just issued an injunction preventing the implementation of a California law that would infringe on the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms.
“A federal judge granted a preliminary injunction Thursday preventing California from enforcing its gun magazine confiscation law.
“U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez said that the law, which prohibits the possession of a magazine with a capacity exceeding 10 rounds of ammunition, likely violates the Second Amendment rights of the plaintiffs in the suit. As a result, he ordered the state to immediately cease enforcing the law, pending further legal developments.
“‘The Court does not lightly enjoin a state statute, even on a preliminary basis,’ Benitez said in the ruling. ‘However, just as the Court is mindful that a majority of California voters approved Proposition 63 and that the government has a legitimate interest in protecting the public from gun violence, it is equally mindful that the Constitution is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.'”
That statement by the court ought to be put on billboards around this country. A majority of California citizens are not empowered to abridge the freedoms of other Californians that are guaranteed to them by our U.S. Constitution.
The federal judge continued, “‘If this injunction does not issue, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of otherwise law-abiding citizens will have an untenable choice: become an outlaw or dispossess one’s self of lawfully acquired property,’ he wrote in the ruling. ‘That is a choice they should not have to make. Not on this record.'”
Not surprisingly, California’s attorney general isn’t happy: “‘Proposition 63 was overwhelmingly approved by voters to increase public safety and enhance security in a sensible and constitutional way,’ Becerra said in a statement on the ruling. ‘I will defend the will of California voters because we cannot continue to lose innocent lives due to gun violence.'”
There’s a lot that could be said about the attorney general’s statement, but one point sticks out: If he is so concerned about losing innocent lives in California, perhaps instead of abridging the rights of the citizens to defend themselves, he should implement an aggressive program of cooperating with federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials to rid the state of illegal immigrants.
After all, he did say he was concerned about the welfare of innocent Californians, didn’t he?
Source: Daily Caller