Bronson wrote up the glorious news coming out of California. Yeah, I know—seldom does that ever happen regarding good news emanating from the People’s Democratic Republic of California, but this is a notable exception. The state’s ban on so-called high-capacity magazines was struck down by the courts as a violation of the Second Amendment:
The Second Amendment scored a victory in court on Friday. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated a California ban on so-called large-capacity magazines (LCM) that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
The three-judge panel ruled that California's ban "substantially burdened core Second Amendment rights" and "struck at the core of law-abiding citizens to self-defend by banning LCM possession within the home." The ban makes about half of all gun magazines in the country illegal to own in California and other states with similar bans on LCMs.
"This is a huge win for the NRA and gun owners nationwide," NRA spokesperson Amy Hunter said in a statement. "The 9th Circuit, which isn't often a favorable court for gun owners, ruled it is unconstitutional to place arbitrary bans on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds."
As Bronson noted, this was partially due to President Trump being able to flip the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has been uber-liberal in years past. Well, the president and Sen. Mitch McConnell have made mincemeat of the liberal mark on our judiciary. Notice how the national injunction fever broke months ago regarding this administration’s executive orders. With the appeals courts now ours, the liberals can’t do jack anymore. Yet, that doesn’t mean people were going to have really, really bad takes on this ruling. Take J.A. Adande, the director of sports journalism at Northwestern University and a former ESPN analyst, who said, “How can high-capacity gun magazines be covered by the second amendment when they didn’t exist when the second amendment was written?”
How can high-capacity gun magazines be covered by the second amendment when they didn’t exist when the second amendment was written? https://t.co/NT6Gb64ZmJ— J.A. Adande (@jadande) August 14, 2020
So you’re saying free speech expressed digitally can’t be considered protected speech because neither computers nor the Internet existed when the First Amendment was written. https://t.co/VKO6gXy9Tq— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) August 15, 2020
lol Twitter made it real easy for people to avoid getting ratio’d for their dumb tweets pic.twitter.com/ABDyUTnl2e— Micah Rate (@Micah_Rate) August 15, 2020
Besides the fact that firearms with ammunition feeding devices holding more than 10 rounds did exist during the founding era, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 2016 (Caetano v Massachusetts) that the Second Amendment extends to arms not in existence during the founding era. https://t.co/4frs3bb7Us— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) August 14, 2020
Haha.— RBe (@RBPundit) August 15, 2020
Wait. You’re joking right? https://t.co/phhTCgdtLF
The same way speech on television, radio, and the Internet is protected by the Constitution. Stick to sports. https://t.co/xq4MeIFSsI— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) August 15, 2020
How can the Internet, radio, television, movies, CDs, and vinyl be covered by the First Amendment when they didn’t exist when the First Amendment was written? https://t.co/PdbKRx5riS— Cam Edwards (@CamEdwards) August 14, 2020
This is really such a weak argument. The Internet and television didn't exist during the Founding era (though the Girandoni rifle did!) and yet your speech is still protected. https://t.co/vKeGIIPLJh— David Harsanyi (@davidharsanyi) August 14, 2020
The iPhone you tweeted this absurdity on didn’t exist back then either but thankfully the 4th amendment still protects it from illegal search and seizure. https://t.co/p52667Zp1c— Cliff Sims (@Cliff_Sims) August 14, 2020
Who wants to tell him? Well, first, Dana Loesch shredded him by responding, “So you’re saying free speech expressed digitally can’t be considered protected speech because neither computers nor the Internet existed when the First Amendment was written.”
Maybe this horrible take could have gone under the radar, but Adande appears to have invoked the replies option on Twitter, where one can set limits on who can respond. It’s a way to protect snowflake liberals from getting their warped sense of reality stomped on by normal people. When people see this, it does paint a target on your back. What are you afraid of, guys? Stop trying to shred the Bill of Rights and we’ll leave you alone.
And yes, I agree with our friends at Twitchy—take screenshots because he might delete it soon.