At what point does the cumulative effect of laws become infringement

[Metal God]

It seems the courts here in CA keep saying each individual anti gun law is constitutional . Can we file a law suite claiming the whole of the laws are infringing on the right . It seems we will never win each individual case and they are going to keep passing laws to the point that any reasonable person even anti's would say this as a whole is infringement .

How ever , my understanding is that you have to fight a specific law and not all the laws as a whole ? So how do we fight this or is this pretty much over for are state ?

Does this need to be fought at the federal level where legislation is enacted to stop states from nickle and dimming us to complete infringement ?

Is this stoppable at the state level ?

[Doheny]

At what point does the cumulative effect of laws become infringement

I think we exceeded infringement a long time ago.

[Ghost_of_1776]

I think we exceeded infringement a long time ago.

This.

IMO there is nothing that can be done at the state level. The state has been taken over by a criminal organization of tyrants. The tyrants have appointed judges to enforce their will on the people. The police have a deafening indifference toward the Constitution. They will infringe on the rights of the people as long as they get their exemptions.

We need a federal gun rights restoration act.

Failing that, non-compliance is the last option before the final, more extreme option is all that is left for us.

[baba booey]

Now


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Oceanbob]

Actually, since 1968.

Downhill from there....

[zhyla]

Well, they are all infringement. No right is absolute. The real question is what do the courts decide is constitutionally allowable and what isn't.

The reality is we are probably better off as a society that Walmart doesn't stock hand grenades. It's a slippery slope but possibly a necessary one.

The future ban of semiauto centerfire rifles is probably the only restriction we have a chance at a court win. Remember that Heller was not about details of types of guns but the outright ban on owning handguns.

[randomBytes]

As Ben Shapiro (sp?) said, we need to stop talking about rights, laws, facts or logic - none of which mean anything to liberals, but rather put things in terms of morals and "feelings". Is it moral to render little old ladies subject to the whim of violent criminals? etc.

[randomBytes]

Listening to Lynch "testifying" before congress the other day on the topic of "emails", it was very obvious that the democrap members were throwing her sideline soft balls - to get off the topic and just waste time.

This reminded me of the behavior of a lot of liberal judges during orals.
They give a lawyer N minutes to make his case, then waste of much of that time as they can asking stupid questions that have little bearing on the case
or are just patent nonsense - "what if a gun manufacturer gave away millions of guns - to make it in common use over night", even a liberal judge should know you cannot legally just hand out guns.

Yet the lawyers can hardly say "judge; sorry but you are wasting my time - I can answer all your rathole questions if you like, but they come out of your time not mine"