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