Supreme Court Decision

[HerbZ]

OK, here are just a few of the California regulations in force at present:
1. One gun purchase a month.
2. You must purchase a new approved lock with each gun purchased.
3. No mags over ten rounds.
4. Ten day wait
5. Excessive DOJ fees.
Do these fall under the description of "reasonable restrictions"? And who determines what is "reasonable"? Are we going to have a court case over how reasonable is each restrictive law ever passed or proposed in this state?



I am not, or have I ever been, an attorney. But it's my understanding that each one of those may have to be a separate legal case. As someone from the Libertarian Party has recently written about this landmark Second Amendment case ruling and how it will lead to rolling back anti-gun laws, "Rome wasn't built in a day."

P.S. I am not, or have I ever been a member of the Libertarian Party (or any political party for that matter). But I do like a lot of what they stand for, and I appreciate the help they were on this case. We might expect that the Libertarian Party may do a lot of good things for our nation, as long as they don't ever get too much political power. I wouldn't want to see the presidency and both houses of congress controlled by the Libertarian Party any more than I would the twiddle dumb and twiddle dee parties that have already. But I would like to see some Libertarians get elected to congress. (And I'd admire Ron Paul even more than I do already, if he'd quit the Republicans and announce himself a Libertarian.)