A minimal burden

The NRA lost a California court case regarding the imposition of firearms transfer fee:

“… In a 3-0 decision on Thursday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said the law advanced California’s interest in disarming people who are forbidden from possessing guns and rifles, while imposing only a “minimal” burden on core constitutional rights under the Second Amendment …”

That this comes out of the 9th Circus does not surprise me.  It also builds upon the earlier NYC licensing fee case the 2nd Circuit ruled was also constitutional.  The difference with this one though is that part of the fee goes for law enforcement efforts against illegal purchases.  I can see where a court would agree that the state has an interest in preventing prohibited persons from obtaining firearms, but why should the cost be put upon legal purchasers and not the taxpaying public as a whole?

2 Responses to “A minimal burden”

  1. Em Says:

    Jacob, “interest balancing” (“public interest”…..) is the legal infrastructure that empowers leftist judges to act as omnipotent wise elders (fake judges to advance the leftist agenda). It empowers them to cast aside the rule of law. It is NEVER OK! I have written articles on this in my local paper. What is a “compelling interest”? What is a “minimum burden”? Where is the metric? It is whatever the fuck the fake Bolshevik judge says it is (“because I said so”). Justice Scalia said “it is like determining whether a line is longer than an object is massive”.


  2. Em Says:

    We need to always be on the offensive, not defensive. What is better public policy? To take away one out of an infinity of possible weapons to be used by known dangerous violent career criminals or to lock them up and throw away the key? If someone is too dangerous to handle a firearm, they probably should be removed from society. They WILL end up hurting somebody somehow at some point. I know, I’m just mean……


Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com