• Latest
  • Trending
  • All
  • News
  • Business
  • Lifestyle
Explainer: More Guns Than People: Why Tighter US Firearms Laws Are Unlikely

US Judge Issues Blistering Order Against Calif. Handgun Law: ‘Extraordinary and Drastic Remedy’

March 21, 2023
Trump Admin Reportedly Cleans House At National Security Council

Trump Admin Reportedly Cleans House At National Security Council

May 23, 2025
DOJ Lets Boeing Escape Felony Charges Over Deadly Plane Crashes

DOJ Lets Boeing Escape Felony Charges Over Deadly Plane Crashes

May 23, 2025
Memorial Day Weekend Gas Prices Hit Lowest Average Since 2021

Memorial Day Weekend Gas Prices Hit Lowest Average Since 2021

May 23, 2025
Trump Announces Major Job-Creating Deal That Biden Blocked On His Way Out The Door

Trump Announces Major Job-Creating Deal That Biden Blocked On His Way Out The Door

May 23, 2025
‘Ouch’: Ex-Obama Aide Saddened By ‘Depressing’ New Data Showing Trump Took His Old Boss’ Coalition

‘Ouch’: Ex-Obama Aide Saddened By ‘Depressing’ New Data Showing Trump Took His Old Boss’ Coalition

May 23, 2025
Trump Budget Czar Thumbs Nose At ‘Partisan’ Watchdog Over Impoundment Allegation

Trump Budget Czar Thumbs Nose At ‘Partisan’ Watchdog Over Impoundment Allegation

May 23, 2025
Trump Admin to Send Hundreds of Border Agents to Assist ICE With Arrests: Report

Trump Admin to Send Hundreds of Border Agents to Assist ICE With Arrests: Report

May 23, 2025
Jamie Foxx Denies Rumors Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs Was Involved in His Hospitalization

Jamie Foxx Denies Rumors Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs Was Involved in His Hospitalization

May 23, 2025
Trump Admin Extradites ‘Commander Butcher’ Of ‘Maniac Murder Cult’ Who Planned NYC Terror Attack

Trump Admin Extradites ‘Commander Butcher’ Of ‘Maniac Murder Cult’ Who Planned NYC Terror Attack

May 23, 2025
Liberals Suddenly Value Fiscal Responsibility After Budget Office Says More Births Will Increase Deficit

Liberals Suddenly Value Fiscal Responsibility After Budget Office Says More Births Will Increase Deficit

May 23, 2025
Democratic Gubernatorial Candidate Maintains She Saw No Evidence Biden Was Withering Away

Democratic Gubernatorial Candidate Maintains She Saw No Evidence Biden Was Withering Away

May 23, 2025
Federal Judge Takes One Look At Harvard Lawsuit, Blocks Trump Order Almost Instantly

Federal Judge Takes One Look At Harvard Lawsuit, Blocks Trump Order Almost Instantly

May 23, 2025
  • Donald Trump
  • State of the Union
  • Elon Musk
  • Tariffs
  • Congress
  • Faith
  • Immigration
Friday, May 23, 2025
  • Login
IJR
  • Politics
  • US News
  • Commentary
  • World News
  • Faith
  • Latest Polls
No Result
View All Result
IJR
No Result
View All Result
Home Commentary

US Judge Issues Blistering Order Against Calif. Handgun Law: ‘Extraordinary and Drastic Remedy’

by Western Journal
March 21, 2023 at 3:17 pm
in Commentary
240 12
0
Explainer: More Guns Than People: Why Tighter US Firearms Laws Are Unlikely

(Bing Guan/Reuters)

491
SHARES
1.4k
VIEWS
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

It’s not just what you say, it’s how you say it — and this judge said it beautifully.

In a blistering ruling Monday, a federal judge in California issued a stay blocking enforcement of a state handgun law ostensibly aimed at promoting gun safety but actually blocking new guns from being sold entirely.

And from beginning to end, the order cut the law into pieces.

U.S. District Judge Cormac J. Carney of the Central District of California, appointed in 2003 by then-President George W. Bush, kicked off the 22-page ruling with the unflinching statement that the Constitution’s Second Amendment “guarantees the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.”

“That right is so fundamental that to regulate conduct covered by the Second Amendment’s plain text, the government must show more than that the regulation promotes an important interest like reducing accidental discharges or solving crime,” Carney wrote, citing the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision. (Emphasis added.)

“Rather, to be constitutional, regulations of Second Amendment rights must be consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” the judge said.

A federal judge blocked key provisions of a California law that drastically restricts the sale of new handguns in the state, saying parts of the legislation violate the Second Amendment. https://t.co/fxmxK3PyS5

— FOX 11 Los Angeles (@FOXLA) March 21, 2023

According to ABC News, Carney’s ruling stopping the state from enforcing the law won’t go into effect for two weeks, allowing time for appeal. And California Attorney General Rob Bonta has issued a statement vowing to “continue to lead efforts to advance and defend California’s gun safety laws.”

However, while Bonta is deciding how to proceed, he might want to take an honest look at Carney’s ruling — and his own state’s history when it comes to this law.

Laudatory goals such as reducing accidents and solving crime were among the excuses California lawmakers used for the Unsafe Handguns Act, a law originally passed in 2001 and amended in 2007 and 2013.

But whatever the merits of those goals, the real liberal aim is gun control, restricting the Second Amendment, and at that, the law has succeeded marvelously.

In fact, Carney wrote, it’s had the practical effect of outlawing the sale of newly manufactured handguns in the Golden State.

The 2007 amendments required indicators to signal when a gun has a round in a chamber and a mechanism that prevents guns from firing if a magazine is not fully inserted, the judge said. The 2013 amendment required “microstamping,” a process by which every round fired includes microscopic characters identifying the weapon’s make and serial number, Carney wrote.

“No handgun available in the world has all three of these features,” he said in the ruling.

That’s mainly because the final one — microstamping — literally does not even exist in commercial weapons “because the technology effectuating microstamping on a broad scale is simply not technologically feasible and commercially practical,” Carney wrote.

“Since 2007 … very few new handguns have been introduced for sale in California with those features,” he said. “Since 2013, when the microstamping requirement was introduced, not a single new semiautomatic handgun has been approved for sale in California. That is because the technology effectuating microstamping on a broad scale is simply not technologically feasible and commercially practical.”

Good intentions, in other words — even the good intentions of California progressives — can’t create technology that doesn’t exist.

“The result of this is that when Californians today buy a handgun at a store, they are largely restricted to models from over sixteen years ago,” Carney wrote.

The judge didn’t add “you idiots” after each sentence of the ruling, but it comes through loud and clear.

Aside from demolishing California lawmakers’ attempts to play King Canute with firearms manufacturers, Carney took apart the utterly fatuous rationalizations behind the law, which cited Revolutionary-generation regulations to claim the law operated within the requirement that it be “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

And this is where the law gets laughable.

According to Carney’s ruling, California’s case presented the Unsafe Handgun Act as simply a modern version of state laws in the early life of the United States, including one that required weapons for sale to go through “proving” — i.e., verification by an official inspector that the weapons could fire and that the shot would cover the distance expected.

Those are basic requirements that the gun that’s being sold will meet the buyer’s needs — that it would hit the animal or human it was being fired at on the frontier farm or the mountain path, not that it wouldn’t go off accidentally.

Carney gave the discussion more time than it was worth but concluded: “Put simply, requiring each model of handgun to contain additional features to potentially help a user safely operate the handgun is completely different from ensuring that each firearm’s basic features were adequately manufactured for safe operation.”

Another early American precedent the judge cited controlled the storage of gunpowder. But those regulations were safety measures to prevent accidental fire, Carney wrote.

They were not intended to limit the ability of gun owners to procure weapons or fire them when they were needed.

It’s almost insulting to the intelligence to have to answer arguments like this, when all California’s progressives are interested in, plainly, is the power to control the Second Amendment rights the state’s citizens have by virtue of being Americans. But Carney answered, and he didn’t flinch.

“Californians have the constitutional right to acquire and use state-of-the-art handguns to protect themselves. They should not be forced to settle for decade-old models of handguns to ensure that they remain safe inside or outside the home,” the judge wrote.

“Because enforcing those requirements implicates the plain text of the Second Amendment, and the government fails to point to any well-established historical analogues that are consistent with them, those requirements are unconstitutional and their enforcement must be preliminarily enjoined,” he said.

To repeat, California’s handgun law “implicates the plain text of the Second Amendment” and it has no basis in American historical tradition. That sounds like pretty much every goal of the gun-grabbing left.

“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the moving party is entitled to relief,” Carney wrote.

But in this case, he said, the “extraordinary and drastic remedy” is justified by the circumstances.

Carney’s ruling made that clear — and he didn’t just reject California’s arguments, he demolished them.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom and his attorney general should take that into account while they decide whether to appeal.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

Tags: CaliforniaCourtGavin NewsomGun controlgunspoliticsSecond AmendmentU.S. News
Are conservatives winning on the Second Amendment?

Completing this poll entitles you to our news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Yes: 92% (34 Votes)
No: 8% (3 Votes)
Share196Tweet123
Western Journal

Western Journal

Advertisements

Top Stories June 10th
Top Stories June 7th
Top Stories June 6th
Top Stories June 3rd
Top Stories May 30th
Top Stories May 29th
Top Stories May 24th
Top Stories May 23rd
Top Stories May 21st
Top Stories May 17th

Join Over 6M Subscribers

We’re organizing an online community to elevate trusted voices on all sides so that you can be fully informed.





IJR

    Copyright © 2024 IJR

Trusted Voices On All Sides

  • About Us
  • GDPR Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Editorial Standards & Corrections Policy
  • Subscribe to IJR

Follow Us

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password?

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
No Result
View All Result
  • Politics
  • US News
  • Commentary
  • World News
  • Faith
  • Latest Polls

    Copyright © 2024 IJR

Top Stories June 10th Top Stories June 7th Top Stories June 6th Top Stories June 3rd Top Stories May 30th Top Stories May 29th Top Stories May 24th Top Stories May 23rd Top Stories May 21st Top Stories May 17th