This week, we’re looking at a federal judge’s ruling against the Golden State’s latest “gun-free zones.”
So, we’ve got one of the lawyers who won the case on to explain it. Kostas Moros, who represented the California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA), joins the show to recount his arguments and the judge’s decision.
The decision was a total victory for Moros and the plaintiffs. The judge enjoined all of the challenged sensitive places restrictions. He even went a bit beyond what the plaintiffs asked for and struck down the parking lot ban associated with many of those places.
Moros argues the judge, in contrast with an opposing decision out of the Second Circuit on a similar New York law, used the proper analysis when approaching the question of where guns can be banned by default. He said many of the locations existed at the time of the Founding but had no such bans. Under the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, he said that means the modern regulation can’t stand.
The judge didn’t stay his order. However, the day after we recorded the podcast, an appeals panel did. So, California’s law will go into effect on January 1st as the case against it continues to unfold. It’s not clear how long the stay will last, but Moros said he and CRPA will keep fighting the law as long as necessary to win.
Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss our exclusive story on how Hawaiians are effectively barred from buying guns for the next few weeks.
You can find the show on your favorite podcasting app or by clicking here. Video of the episode is available on our YouTube channel. Reload Members get access on Sunday, as always. The show goes public on Monday.
One Response
Thank you The Reload, and an extra “thank you!” to Mr. Kostas Moros for working hard and long during these Xmas holidays! Very much appreciated
Is there a way to force our legislatures, our Congress, to peremptorily review a piece of legislation for clear constitutional violations before it’s enacted or enforced? I’m thinking of how secessionist states pre-1865 had to submit legislation for review at the federal level for constitutionality.
But this would be adding review at each legislative level (incl. municipal and county) The “force” part would be due to we-the-people suing in order to make it so (even when that’ll have to be resolved at SCOTUS. ‘Cause gov’t never relinquishes power easily, and there are plenty of aunty-antis and uncle-usurps ready to cry, “Gov’t is accountable! Gov’t is friendly!”