Anthony Miranda, the Armed Scholar from youtube is one of the named plaintiffs.
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi...v_Bonta_Preliminary_Injunction.pdf?1703120456
the document is incredible
"We live in dangerous times. Nearly every day, we are barraged with stories about
school shootings, attacks on places of worship, and other unthinkable acts of violence and
cruelty. Nor are our society’s problems limited to those acute acts of terror—daily our
country faces prejudice and division of all types, economic uncertainty and poverty, a
nationwide mental health crisis, and an epidemic of addiction and crime. The only hope
to find in the face of such dire circumstances is that democracy, as it has up to this point,
will prevail and somehow solve the challenges we face. But such hope is little comfort to
individuals who, through no fault of their own, find themselves beset by an attacker and
facing their death or that of their loved ones.
The right to self-defense and to defend one’s family is fundamental and inherent to
our very humanity irrespective of any formal codification. In their wisdom, the Founders
recognized the need for individual citizens to protect themselves and their loved ones
from those that would do them harm—and they knew that such a right could not be
vindicated without the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment to the United States
Constitution guarantees law-abiding, responsible citizens the right to keep and bear arms
for self-defense in case of confrontation.
For many years, the right to bear arms, and so necessarily the right to self-defense,
was relegated to second-class status. But the United States Supreme Court made clear in
its landmark decisions District of Columbia v. Heller, McDonald v. City of Chicago, and
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Incorporated v. Bruen that relegation could no
longer be permitted—individuals must be able to effectuate their right to self-defense by,
if they so choose, responsibly bearing arms.
Some disagree with the Founders and the Supreme Court that individual citizens
have a right to protect themselves and believe that the best solution to the many dangers
of the modern day is to prevent law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns. It is not
this Court’s place to question their judgement as to how to solve the many challenges we
face. That is up to the people and their elected representatives. But the Constitution, by
design, recognizes that some rights are so important and sacrosanct that nothing short of a
constitutional amendment may take them away. No one—not a federal judge, not a state
governor or legislator, not even the President of the United States—is above the
Constitution.
Nevertheless, California recently passed a law, Senate Bill 2, that limits the public
places where people with concealed carry permits may carry their handguns to defend
themselves and their families. To obtain such a permit in California, a person must go
through a rigorous screening process. The process includes a lengthy application, a
thorough background check involving interviews, fingerprinting, and reviewing multiple
government databases, and a full-day, hands-on training course in which the person must
demonstrate they can safely and proficiently use the handgun they seek to carry in public.
Even with those stringent requirements, California will not allow concealed carry
permitholders to effectively practice what the Second Amendment promises. SB2’s
coverage is sweeping, repugnant to the Second Amendment, and openly defiant of the
Supreme Court. The law designates twenty-six categories of places, such as hospitals,
public transportation, places that sell liquor for on-site consumption, playgrounds, parks,
casinos, stadiums, libraries, amusement parks, zoos, places of worship, and banks, as
“sensitive places” where concealed carry permitholders cannot carry their handguns.
SB2 turns nearly every public place in California into a “sensitive place,” effectively
abolishing the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding and exceptionally qualified
citizens to be armed and to defend themselves in public.
Plaintiffs, who are concealed carry permitholders and related organizations,
brought these two lawsuits against California to challenge the constitutionality of many
of SB2’s “sensitive place” provisions. They now seek a preliminary injunction enjoining
California from enforcing the challenged sensitive-place provisions, asserting that many
of those restrictions violate their Second Amendment rights and deprive them of their
ability to defend themselves and their loved ones in public. Plaintiffs are right. Their
motions for a preliminary injunction are GRANTED"
IV. CONCLUSION
The Second Amendment preserves a fundamental constitutional right for law-
abiding citizens to keep and bear arms for self-defense. Increasingly in modern times,
with “the ubiquity of guns and our country’s high level of gun violence,” ordinary law-
abiding people feel a need to carry handguns in public to protect themselves and their
families against violence. Bruen, 597 U.S. at 73 (Alito, J., concurring). This may be
because they “live in high-crime neighborhoods,” or because they “must traverse dark
and dangerous streets in order to reach their homes after work or other evening
activities,” or because they “reasonably believe that unless they can brandish or, if
necessary, use a handgun in the case of attack, they may be murdered, raped, or suffer
some other serious injury.” Id. CCW permitholders are among the most responsible,
reliable law-abiding citizens. They have been through a vigorous vetting and training
process following their application to carry a concealed handgun. The challenged SB2
provisions unconstitutionally deprive this group of their constitutional right to carry a
handgun in public for self-defense. Therefore, those provisions must be preliminarily
enjoined."
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi...v_Bonta_Preliminary_Injunction.pdf?1703120456
the document is incredible
"We live in dangerous times. Nearly every day, we are barraged with stories about
school shootings, attacks on places of worship, and other unthinkable acts of violence and
cruelty. Nor are our society’s problems limited to those acute acts of terror—daily our
country faces prejudice and division of all types, economic uncertainty and poverty, a
nationwide mental health crisis, and an epidemic of addiction and crime. The only hope
to find in the face of such dire circumstances is that democracy, as it has up to this point,
will prevail and somehow solve the challenges we face. But such hope is little comfort to
individuals who, through no fault of their own, find themselves beset by an attacker and
facing their death or that of their loved ones.
The right to self-defense and to defend one’s family is fundamental and inherent to
our very humanity irrespective of any formal codification. In their wisdom, the Founders
recognized the need for individual citizens to protect themselves and their loved ones
from those that would do them harm—and they knew that such a right could not be
vindicated without the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment to the United States
Constitution guarantees law-abiding, responsible citizens the right to keep and bear arms
for self-defense in case of confrontation.
For many years, the right to bear arms, and so necessarily the right to self-defense,
was relegated to second-class status. But the United States Supreme Court made clear in
its landmark decisions District of Columbia v. Heller, McDonald v. City of Chicago, and
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Incorporated v. Bruen that relegation could no
longer be permitted—individuals must be able to effectuate their right to self-defense by,
if they so choose, responsibly bearing arms.
Some disagree with the Founders and the Supreme Court that individual citizens
have a right to protect themselves and believe that the best solution to the many dangers
of the modern day is to prevent law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns. It is not
this Court’s place to question their judgement as to how to solve the many challenges we
face. That is up to the people and their elected representatives. But the Constitution, by
design, recognizes that some rights are so important and sacrosanct that nothing short of a
constitutional amendment may take them away. No one—not a federal judge, not a state
governor or legislator, not even the President of the United States—is above the
Constitution.
Nevertheless, California recently passed a law, Senate Bill 2, that limits the public
places where people with concealed carry permits may carry their handguns to defend
themselves and their families. To obtain such a permit in California, a person must go
through a rigorous screening process. The process includes a lengthy application, a
thorough background check involving interviews, fingerprinting, and reviewing multiple
government databases, and a full-day, hands-on training course in which the person must
demonstrate they can safely and proficiently use the handgun they seek to carry in public.
Even with those stringent requirements, California will not allow concealed carry
permitholders to effectively practice what the Second Amendment promises. SB2’s
coverage is sweeping, repugnant to the Second Amendment, and openly defiant of the
Supreme Court. The law designates twenty-six categories of places, such as hospitals,
public transportation, places that sell liquor for on-site consumption, playgrounds, parks,
casinos, stadiums, libraries, amusement parks, zoos, places of worship, and banks, as
“sensitive places” where concealed carry permitholders cannot carry their handguns.
SB2 turns nearly every public place in California into a “sensitive place,” effectively
abolishing the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding and exceptionally qualified
citizens to be armed and to defend themselves in public.
Plaintiffs, who are concealed carry permitholders and related organizations,
brought these two lawsuits against California to challenge the constitutionality of many
of SB2’s “sensitive place” provisions. They now seek a preliminary injunction enjoining
California from enforcing the challenged sensitive-place provisions, asserting that many
of those restrictions violate their Second Amendment rights and deprive them of their
ability to defend themselves and their loved ones in public. Plaintiffs are right. Their
motions for a preliminary injunction are GRANTED"
IV. CONCLUSION
The Second Amendment preserves a fundamental constitutional right for law-
abiding citizens to keep and bear arms for self-defense. Increasingly in modern times,
with “the ubiquity of guns and our country’s high level of gun violence,” ordinary law-
abiding people feel a need to carry handguns in public to protect themselves and their
families against violence. Bruen, 597 U.S. at 73 (Alito, J., concurring). This may be
because they “live in high-crime neighborhoods,” or because they “must traverse dark
and dangerous streets in order to reach their homes after work or other evening
activities,” or because they “reasonably believe that unless they can brandish or, if
necessary, use a handgun in the case of attack, they may be murdered, raped, or suffer
some other serious injury.” Id. CCW permitholders are among the most responsible,
reliable law-abiding citizens. They have been through a vigorous vetting and training
process following their application to carry a concealed handgun. The challenged SB2
provisions unconstitutionally deprive this group of their constitutional right to carry a
handgun in public for self-defense. Therefore, those provisions must be preliminarily
enjoined."
Last edited:
