Governors signing Unconstitutional Bill’s into Law

I live in California, it Irritates me how this Governor and politicians can make up and pass anti-gun laws that are Unconstitutional. How can politicians write these anti-gun laws/bills and get away without getting checked by of District Federal Counts to see if the new law is Unconstitutional or not before the Governor signs it and make it law? The way it now the Governor signs a law and it goes into effect and “We the People” with the NRA, GOA, 2AF, Cal Guns, etc. have to pay and fight against all these unconstitutional laws and then it takes years to overturn them. The Government is doing this on purpose to flood us with these laws and make it take years to possibly overturn…In my opinion, there should be a Special Circumstance for “We the People” when we are dealing with a Constitutional Law like the 2nd Amendment, before the Government can make a law that Infringes with an constitutional law, it has to be checked by the court first before they can make it a bill or law. Also the government shouldn’t be able to in force the law or rule when Our Gun Rights Organizations are fighting it in courts.


Somewhat unrelated, but here in CO, King Jared Polis has extended his unconstitutional, mask mandate by 30 more days; based on 0 scientific evidence. I’ll be calling to raise hell with him this week.


Under federal law and the laws of most states, courts cannot hear a case unless there is an actual controversy. (U.S. Const. Art. 3 Section 2.). Until the law is passed, there is no controversy for the Court to hear and there would not yet be a person who has standing to challenge the law. Whether a law can be enforced after it has been challenged depends on whether the courts will issue an injunction. The standard for issuing injunctions is also pretty high. Whether an injunction will be issued generally depends on 4 factors, (1) the plaintiff’s likelihood of prevailing on the merits;(2) a showing of irreparable injury to plaintiff if relief is not granted; (3) the threatened injury to the movant is demonstrated to outweigh whatever damage the proposed injunction may cause the opposing party; and (4) the balancing of equities.


So in summary, you can’t stop them from doing it until they’ve done it???

Imagine if we managed child safety the same way.


Wouldn’t where it states in the 2nd Amendment , “Shall not be infringed” be an actual controversy when the Government is trying pass a law to undermine it??


It is not a controversy until it is passed because, until it is passed, it is not a law and has no effect on anyone.

And you have to look to the jurisprudence with respect to the Second Amendment. As of today, It has been established by the Supreme Court that the Second Amendment give the individual the right to bear arms in self defense in the home Heller and that the right is applicable to the states McDonald.

Unless and until the Supreme Court speaks and extends the right to bear arms, what is and is not Constitutional is a political question. The right to bear arms extends has not yet been established as a fundamental right beyond the right to carry in your home.

Don’t get me wrong, I read shall not be infringed the same way you do, but, until the Supreme Court rules on the issue, it is up for grabs in both state and federal legislatures and only then, can the infringement be challenged in court.


Thanks for the help @MikeBKY.

Regarding “up for grabs”, how “up for grabs” is it given the 9th amendment? Who decides if it’s NOT a “fundamental right” if it’s not enumerated in the constitution?

The 9th: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Why should that mean it shall be left to the states, individuality, to define carry (concealed or not) and self-defense gun usage rights outside the home? If something was not clearly “enumerated in the Constitution”, does that mean an individual state can therefore “disparage” a right “retained by the people”?

Certain fundamental rights are only “fundamental” within the home?


Thank you for your service to this community. It is interesting to hear an attorneys case so clearly expressed. It does sadden me though as it appears there is little defence against super majority radicalism quickly pushing the laws into effect that maintains their radicalism.
Surely this could lead to single party states and eventually the country.
Maybe we are part way there already


Another factor is a State’s legislation having its own State Constitution and the Reserved powers of cities , counties, Burroughs, townships… etc.
Texas for years on end had several different types of cases go into full on legal battles with U.S.Supreme Court and carried their decisions successfully on several. Again several & different types of cases.
California, New York, New Jersey, now Virginia have become so anti Constitution that I feel that it has become a free pass on how states do business now!
I’m hoping that the SCOTUS will get the backlogged 2A cases caught up. The courts are already hearing of how states limiting several firearm devices are harming the industry as a whole.
If the firearm manufacturing companies would collectively do what Bill Gates did with Microsoft the government would back off. His case was a Federal Trust case accusing Microsoft of monopolizing the market. When they went to sanction him he explained how Microsoft doesn’t need to produce apps or defense software, then asking “What…?, You’ll buy it from China?”
They left him alone. The firearms manufacturers need to do the same. For every state that passes anti 2A laws, refuse to allocate contracts for anything from the industry until they revert the laws. Cut them off plain and simple.
Problem here is how money talks and how businesses are in business to make money. That’s the problem and why they won’t take the stance. Thing is they should.


@Kevin1776, you need to keep in mind that when the Bill of Rights was ratified, it applied ONLY to the federal government and the state was considered the guardian of the rights of the citizens. States were not prohibited by the federal constitution from infringing on the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights unless the state constitution guaranteed some protection and many states historically prohibited concealed weapons. It wasn’t until the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 that due process was required in the execution of state laws by the federal government. Since then, it has been up to the Supreme court to determine which rights are fundamental. Most, but not all of the Bill of Rights have been held to apply to the states by way of the 14th amendment.

Luckily, @Adamant, we our government is a republic and not a true democracy. If you read through the Federalists papers you would see how many great nations fell because of democracy. The reality is democracy does not survive as the number of members increases. So long as our republic stands, we should overall survive. As much as the left wants to repeal the 2nd Amendment and eliminate the electoral college, as long as at least 13 states hold their ground, no amendment will pass.

@Aaron40 I agree with you. We need another case to get before the Supreme Court to answer some more questions. I’d really like to have Judge Barrett’s title changed to Justice Barrett before that happens.


I thank you so much for your education and assurance.
I understand the Republic and I see also that the UK is protected also to some extent by the House of Lords.

1 Like

We the people have forgotten the Constitution, the meaning of it, the limitations of it, and the words used in it and what those words meant, were understood to mean, and what usage they had when they were written and used.
Words have meaning. Words have power.

When we the people forget, or ignore , we find far too often, those elected who either do not know the Constitution, or simply hate it and want to circumvent it, they want power. That is why, we the people, have elected some of the worst dregs of society, the leftist Communist Fascist Totalitarian Tyrants, who would far rather dictate than adhere to the Constitution. We elect these people. Stop doing that.

Now, remember;

A Law Repugnant to the Constitution is Void ~ United States Supreme Court.

There was a time, most people knew and understood what was Constitutional and what was not, and while some laws that were not, actually passed and were signed, they were not as often as we see today.

Unfortunately, @MikeBKY is correct, we must in many cases have a case arise, where the court can hear the merits… but that brings other concerns, as we find ‘activist’ judges, who refuse to remain within the bounds and authority of the Constitution and they legislate from the bench, or allow an unconstitutional law to stand, either from ignorance, cowardice, or they prefer to subvert the Constitution and desire a ‘evolving’ Constitution, so that we have no firm foundation on which to operate.

Until GOOD courts can hear a case, you, in your state, or we as a nation, may be forced to suffer increasing levels of tyranny.

There is the option of recall which is available in many states, or simply voting in the next election and electing a Constitutional Conservative and seek to ensure the legislature is populated with the same, to ensure all the Constitution, the rights of all, and freedom and liberty. Also, ensuring the Legislative Branch is populated with as many Constitutionalists as we can find.

When an act injurious to freedom has once been done and the people bear it, the repetition of it is more likely to meet with submission ~ Samuel Adams



However, there are some basic understandings, and sufficient writings of the founders, including letters, and the Federalist Papers, that would suggest there was no desire to establish rights for ONLY inside your home.

That could lead to the idea of the First Amendment rights, to Free Speech is only for inside your home, or the Right to Freedom of Religion is ONLY for inside your home (which may be potentially the case as far too many states seem to outlaw church attendance at the current time), and by extension, the right to free speech and freedom of the press is only for parchment, quill and ink, or the printing press as used by our founding generation.

If the rights are NOT rights, or they are subjective and in a state of flux, then what exactly do we have guaranteed by the Constitution?


So true. Pure democracies allow the majority to not have to consider the voice/opinions of the minority. Our Founding Fathers understood this well.

An example of this is the Electoral College. Without it, presidential candidates could just focus on campaigning to the States with the highest populations, thus ignoring the States with smaller populations. Yet, there are many who do not understand this and want to eliminate the Electoral College (and some who DO understand and want to change it because it plays to their favor).


And, no way to prevent it or restore the Constitution if the court is loaded with activists who legislate from the bench, and prefer a evolving Constitution.

They must do it before you can see if they are allowed to do it… and once they do it, there is a chance that even if they are not allowed to do it, it already exists so you end up stuck with it.

Remember, they ‘must pass it to know what is in it’


I agree with you but, there is a long history of prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons before and after the ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. At that time, prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons was not considered an infringement of right to bear arms.


While true, the clear verbiage of the right states KEEP and BEAR. That means carry, hold, have, and it does not stipulate a requirement that it be openly carried.

There were some who passed laws about concealed carry due to ‘highwaymen’, and others with nefarious intent (hmmm, Democrats? :slight_smile: ) yet we also know that unconstitutional laws have been passed and enforced in the past, some of which were overturned, some allowed to expire, and some repealed, one such as the Alien and Sedition Act, and a court decision such as Dred Scott.

While I understand what you are saying, I find it concerning that ‘precedent’ or some act previously done, may establish some limits and infringements on rights.

If we allow one such infringement, it opens the door to others. We may find ourselves with ID requirements to exercise our religious freedom (and that was done by that little mustache man… and not Charlie Chaplin),

While some would consider at certain points in our history, concealed carry to suggest nefarious intent, there were pocket pistols and derringers of the day, and those who were of the upper status and wore their finery, their silk and linen attire, their suits and vests, were less likely to openly carry, but would have a weapon in a vest pocket or the pocket of their frock coat… while those of the more mundane level would carry on their hip openly.
If we determine the societal norm of concealed carry is nefarious, and only upper ‘crust’ can do so, we do not have equality under the law. If we determine the societal norm is Baptists are nefarious, could we prohibit Baptists?
The open door of tyranny may swing wide if we allow it

There was even a ‘belt gun’, that was worn backwards to face the rear, concealed, and to protect against garroting.

There is no participation in a militia as a prerequisite for exercising the right to keep and bear arms, and it is not and never was a collective right, or it would have stated 'The right of the states…"

Perhaps I am more hard line on certain aspects. I see no authorization in the Constitution for limiting any arms, including automatic, nor do I see anything that would limit or prohibit concealed carry.

The fact the Bill of Rights had failed to address the rights throughout the entire nation until the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the states, should not displace the idea that the rights we have are rights as humans and as Americans, not as Virginians or Ohioans.

If one walked from Virginia with a firearm on their hip or concealed, to Kentucky, they should still have the same rights as existed in Virginia.

Just my bloviated .22LR cents worth


No man has given me rights; mine come from God, man has just made it legal.


Kentucky has adopted 4 Constitutions since it became a state. In 1792, the Kentucky Constitution said “the right to bear arms shall not be questioned.” The subsequent Constitution in 1799 had the same language. In 1850, the right was rephrased:
"All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned:
… … …

The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons.

This change predates the Civil War Amendments where the bill or rights were selectively made applicable to the states. But again, SCOTUS did not recognize the applicability of the 2nd Amendment to the states until McDonald was decided, and then, only to the limited question of possessing firearms in the home.

I’m not saying that is right, only that it is. When the Supreme Court issues a decision, they usually do so narrowly with respect to the question presented and very rarely go beyond the specific question that is before the Court.


I would suggest that the USCCA start co forming a Lobbyist party immediately.
If you don’t USCCA you all will become unemployed. Why have an insurance when everything is deemed illegal?
Another thing would be to reject membership to any politician that wants to become a member that has passed anti-2A laws or proposed bills. NO DOUBLE STANDARDS!