Judge Backs Gun Shops

PUBLISHED: 7:02 PM 13 Sep 2018

Judge Rules On 95-Year Old Law, Stands Up For Gun Shops

The judge ruled that the law was both too broad and too narrow, making it legally unworkable and a violation of the First Amendment.

A judge in California recently ruled on a 95-year-old law in the state, and in doing so took a stand for gun rights and the First Amendment.

For decades, California’s gun control laws have been some of the most strict in the United States, to the point where most firearm companies that sell in the state designed ‘California compliant’ models that meet their stringent requirements.

However, occasionally, laws are struck down concerning the state’s draconian gun control measures. In a decision made public just two days ago, a federal court judge in California declared a law pertaining to the Second Amendment to be ‘unconstitutional,’ mostly because it violated the First Amendment.

The 95-year-old law prohibited retailers from using advertisements for guns, because people with ‘impulsive personality’ problems might see them and act. Basically, California law said that people were too stupid to think for themselves.

On Tuesday, at a U.S. District Court in Sacramento, California, Judge Troy Nunley handed down his decision concerning a regulation in the state.

State officials in the leftist state passed a law 95 years ago which banned arms dealers in the state from displaying ads for handguns, or images of handguns, in the storefront windows.

In defending the law from a legal challenge, state officials claimed that such adverts could spur those with “impulsive personality traits” to buy more pistols.

They also claimed that the law advanced the state’s interest in reducing crimes committed with handguns, as well as suicides committed with handguns.

In a strange decision, Nunley found that the law was both too narrow and too broad.

It was too narrow in that dealers were still allowed to use print and/or radio ads, or even display signs declaring firearms for sale.

However, U.S. District Court Judge Nunley also said that the law was too broad, in that it restricted the speech of all adults, with no regards to their personality traits.

In his decision, the judge wrote that the government cannot restrict the lawful speech of adults who aren’t criminal and who don’t suffer from mental illness, especially as it pertained to a constitutionally-protected product.

Strangely, Judge Nunley was appointed to his position by Barack Obama.

The office of Attorney General Xavier Becerra defended the law, which was part of California’s penal code, and had been for nearly a century.

Members of the AG’s office didn’t respond to requests for comment on their loss in court.

The judge’s decision in the case represented a rare win in the state of California for the Second Amendment, and for people who sell firearms in the state.

Unlike most American states, where citizens are rarely forced to travel far to find a firearm for sale, some major cities in California have all but driven firearm shops out, such as San Francisco.

Indeed, San Francisco’s last legal retailer of (California compliant) firearms, a shop that had been opened by a famed Olympic shooter, closed in 2015.

The decision represented a victory for the people who brought it forward, namely Tracy Rifle and Pistol, Ten Percent Firearms, and other dealers in the state.

It also represented an extremely rare victory for the Second Amendment, and for those who own firearm shops in the state.

As of 2012, California’s laws as they pertained to firearms, knives, and weapons amounted to more than 700 pages of text.

Many in the state, especially those who sold weapons as their trade, often had difficulty abiding by, or even understanding, the state’s laws.

Furthermore, Many people recognize the state has repeatedly done everything it could to make it extremely difficult, nigh on impossible, for the average person to carry a firearm on their person.

The state is one of nine ‘may-issue’ states in the United States. For those who want to carry a concealed firearm, that means that they can meet every requirement set by the state (and/or county or city they live in), but the local sheriff could still decide to deny the permit.

Realistically, in most parts of California, the only people who ever received these coveted licenses to carry a concealed handgun were the wealthy, the famous, and the politically-connected.

California law has banned most modern sporting rifles, magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, and a number of other arbitrary features that the state claimed made those rifles more of a danger.

However, even an Obama-appointed judge saw that California penal code violated the First Amendment in its hopes to restrict the Second.