Don?t know who needs to hear this?

[JamesCC]

Every political decision by Gavin is directly coming for your gun rights. Every single one.

[9Cal_OC]

Yep. We know.

[SkyHawk]

[Squatch]

Molon Labe Commander Sniffs-a-lot.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[Tarmy]

Kicking that post count up OP.

Plus one!

[BigMac90660]

Known that for years.

[Corbin Dallas]

Sargent Sarcam says ?no chit Captain obvious?

[echo1]

Kicking that post count up OP.

Plus one!

See you a raise you one. PAX

[The Gleam]

In California, as well as many other states, if you repeatedly and frequently file repetitive frivolous questionable lawsuits that are clearly designed as a money-grab and/or a revenge tactic, you'll be deemed a vexatious litigant and added to an ongoing list of people identified as such. The court essentially blocks you from filing future nonsense in the future.

Recent legislation like SB2, AB1483, SB452, and AB28 (among others) do nothing about actual gun safety, were designed to target a certain set of people, a specific civil right and punishiment of law-abiding gun owners merely for being gun owners - all were clearly motivated by a biased-driven, spiteful, vindictive, grudge - and certainly were vexatious.

With that in mind, there should be a bill put forth to prohibit and censure vexatious legislators.

It would block them from using the process and their positions to continuously file frivoulous legislation purely to attack those with whom they do not agree, as a way of vengeful punitive marginalizing gimmicks - especially when the nonsense repeatedly doesn't hold up in court when argued.

It could be authored to address the Governor from doing the same with 'executive/emergency orders' like the asinine stupidity we saw during Katrina, during COVID, or most recently from the governor of New Mexico.

---

[curtisfong]

I guarantee you the response would be to classify anyone challenging a law as unconstitutional under the 2A as vexatious. The 9th would trip over themselves to agree. That's how corrupt they are. They'd love nothing more than challenges to law to flat out stop. They have no interest in limiting anything the legislature (or the DoJ) does. They do not themselves believe in checks and balances. They believe their duty is to defy SCOTUS, which they now believe is illegitimate.

[Dan_Eastvale]

Not the Draconian total gun control occurred as residents originally thought when he was elected.
Amazing too, since CA has a government fully Dem controlled.

[The Gleam]

I guarantee you the response would be to classify anyone challenging a law as unconstitutional under the 2A as vexatious.

Well, they wouldn't have grounds for that justification, as something vexatious is typically deemed to be an offensive action, repetitive of the same design without merit or genuine substance for litigation, vengeful and frivolous.

They would not be able to apply that toward defense of a civil right, and especially as such litigation is on a case by case response to obviously abhorrent legislation.


---

[AlmostHeaven]

This whole thread is the very definition of preaching to the choir. The people who need to understand the evil nature of Governor Newsom do not visit Calguns.

[The Gleam]

This whole thread is the very definition of preaching to the choir. The people who need to understand the evil nature of Governor Newsom do not visit Calguns.

Maybe not. We have seen an increase in apathy and atrophy towards activism and action among a greater number of Calguns members in recent years, even vocal proponents of that willful attrition, so the occasional reminder might be needed.

(That is, it will only be effective if any of them would view other forums on the site besides 'Off-Topic'.)

---