i'm not disagreeing and i know how it works, even though its unconstitutional it'll get passed and then no injunction despite 'status quo' being broken (see duncan).I'm just saying, Eric Tirschwell's own ideology and approach to law is duplicitous, morally bankrupt, and presents a problematic double standard. Organizations that he's deeply embedded with, like the ADL, have no problem calling for mass civilian slaughter through a foreign country using our tax dollars to pay for the weapons, while depriving us of money that could house our homeless, and eroding our constitutional rights. He literally believes we should be giving guns to Israel, but that Americans owning guns is a bridge too far, and that we, the victims of his lawfare, should foot the bill for the genocide. Eric Tirschwell uses American courts to argue that AR-15s are 'unnecessary for self-defense,' while supporting organizations that demand the U.S. government ship those exact rifles to civilians in Israel for that exact purpose.
it's insane that Bruen was 3 years ago and they didn't say anything different to Heller but here we are.
This nonsense of 'self defense' is a red herring. The standard is "commonly possessed for lawful purposes"... SCOTUS said "SUCH AS self defense" (non-limiting). But as usual California will just take something out of context and run with it. Like Kavanaugh's dicta on sensitive places let them run rampant with banning places despite the actual opinion requiring the THT test and the burden on the government.
They still bring in all this 'public safety/interest' test which Heller specifically excluded