Ever get mail (USPS mail) that says Important!, or Time Sensitive Data Enclosed!, or maybe it's Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!, or something similar, and you fail to open it because we all know it isn't really important (to you, anyway) and is a complete waste of paper, ink, and your time?
No? Tell me your secret.
I stumbled across one of those must-read posts, which I typically ignore because I'm not interested in life insurance or some weird new drug that's going to give me a lift, so to speak.
I actually had some complete dumb-ass call me up the other day about life insurance. A credit union I belong to offered me $12 large of FREE!!! life insurance, no matter how old and decrepit I was. I'd been drinking, so I accepted and promptly forgot about the whole thing. Then maybe three months later this demented aardvark calls me on the phone and says he'll be in my area later on this week, either Thursday afternoon or Friday morning, and which of these two appointment times would be best for me?
He then explained that there's all kind of FREE!!! services and benefits (more like BENEFITS!!!) that go right along with my life insurance, but he needs to explain them to me. Because I'm so fucking dumb that I wouldn't understand them otherwise.
Okay, he didn't really say that last part.
I pointed out that this was life insurance, and the only way I'll get my twelve large is if I cash in my chips, so what's the point? I'll be dead, won't I?
He volunteered to put me on the do not call list. What an idiot.
Getting right back to my original topic. For reasons that still aren't clear to me, I followed up this oh-so-fucking-important must-read post, and wonder of all wonders, I'm glad I did.
If you want to read a superbly written document upholding the Second Amendment and kicking every single freedom hating Liberal right where it does the most damage, read this one:
Case No.: 3:17cv1017
Here's where it begins:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No.: 3:17cv1017-BEN (JLB)ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DECLARING CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE § 32310 UNCONSTITUTIONAL and ENJOINING ENFORCEMENT
Individual liberty and freedom are not outmoded concepts.“The judiciary is –and is often the only –protector of individual rights that are at the heart of our democracy.” --Senator Ted Kennedy, Senate Hearing on the Nomination of Robert Bork, 1987.
And it ends here:
This decision is a freedom calculus decided long ago by Colonists who cherished individual freedom more than the subservient security of a British ruler. The freedom they fought for was not free of cost then, and it is not free now. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendant Attorney General Xavier Becerra, and his officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with him, and those duly sworn state peace officers and federal law enforcement officers who gain knowledge of this injunction order, or know of the existence of this injunction order, are enjoined from enforcing California Penal Code section 32310.2.
Defendant Becerra shall provide, by personal service or otherwise, actual notice of this order to all law enforcement personnel who are responsible for implementing or enforcing the enjoined statute. The government shall file a declaration establishing proof of such notice.
DATED: March 29, 2019
The Granolaville moonbats will appeal this decision (how can they fail to do so?) but in the meantime if you have a 150 round magazine you're perfectly legal.
My thanks to Joe Huffman over at The View From North Central Idaho for this post: 10-round magazine limit ruled unconstitutional!!!!, along with bloggers John Hardin and Kevin over at The Smallest Minority for posting You Need to Read This.
Here's a hoist of the early afternoon bourbon glass and a tip of the old fedora to everyone involved.
4 comments:
Well, thumbs down to JR.
oops, posted to the wrong one.
Gawd, we need that kind of judiciary up here in Canada...
We need it everywhere. As I read through the decision, I realized that that this argument can be used against any and all gun control laws in general.
Post a Comment