OPINION: The Activist, Communist, and Hypocrite who Stripped Californians of 2nd Amendment Rights

A perfect ruling to cap 2023, which was a dumpster fire of a year, and a ruling that exemplifies that God hating Communists really do control California. Of course, more likely than not, the Communists are selected rather than elected in California, as the swing states followed the California model in 2020—illustrated in the Summary of Election Fraud in the 2020 Presidential Election in the Swing States—overwhelmingly proves.

Judge Carney, in his ruling, correctly and justly said:

“The Second Amendment preserves a fundamental constitutional right for law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms for self-defense. Increasingly in modern times, with “the ubiquity of guns and our country’s high level of gun violence,” ordinary law-abiding people feel a need to carry handguns in public to protect themselves and their families against violence. Bruen, 597 U.S. at 73 (Alito, J., concurring). This may be because they “live in high-crime neighborhoods,” or because they “must traverse dark and dangerous streets in order to reach their homes after work or other evening activities,” or because they “reasonably believe that unless they can brandish or, if necessary, use a handgun in the case of attack, they may be murdered, raped, or suffer some other serious injury.” Id. CCW permitholders are among the most responsible, reliable law-abiding citizens. They have been through a vigorous vetting and training process following their application to carry a concealed handgun. The challenged SB2 provisions unconstitutionally deprive this group of their constitutional right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense. Therefore, those provisions must be preliminarily enjoined.”

So, who were the three judges of the 9^th circuit that decided to circumvent and defy the Supreme Court of the United States and the Constitution? As it turns out, the three-judge panel consists of an activist, a DEI adhering Communist, and a hypocrite.  The judges were appointed by Obama, Clinton, and Bush, respectively.

The Activist

Most horrifically, Grassley recounted Hurwitz’s lone dissent on a death penalty case that was brought before the Arizona Supreme Court.

“On Saturday, December 2, 1989, this four-year old boy, Christopher, was dressed in his favorite clothes by his mother, Debra Milke.  She told him that James Styers, who shared the apartment with Debra, would take him to the mall to see Santa Claus.  After picking up another man, Roger Scott, they stopped at a couple of drugstores.  Then the two men and Christopher had pizza for lunch.  But, rather than taking Christopher to see Santa Claus at the mall, they drove him to the desert.  Christopher was told they were going to look for snakes.  Instead, Christopher was shot three times in the back of the head by Styers, his body left in the desert.

James Styers, 63, was convicted of first degree murder of the four-year old boy, conspiracy to commit first degree murder, child abuse, and kidnapping – all supposedly at the request of the boy’s mother. Debra Milke, James Styers and Roger Scott were all sentenced to death for the killing.

After years of appeals, the case found itself in federal court, making its way to the Ninth Circuit.  In 2008, nearly 19 years after this terrible crime took place, the Ninth Circuit sent the Styers case back to Arizona, claiming that the state courts did not adequately consider the post-traumatic stress disorder Styers suffered because of his military service in Vietnam.

Just about one year ago, in June 2011, some 22 years after this horrific evil event occurred, the Arizona Supreme Court heard the appeal.  In a 4-1 decision, the Court acknowledged Styers’ Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, but nonetheless ruled it did not outweigh the aggravating factors found during trial.  Styers’ death sentence was upheld, and he remains on Arizona’s death row.

The nominee before the Senate, Justice Andrew Hurwitz, was the lone dissenter in that 4-1 decision. He was the sole person on the Arizona Supreme Court who believed Christopher’s murderer should be given another trial.”

Grassley also recounted how Hurwitz argued before the Arizona Supreme Court on behalf of all 29 Arizona death row inmates in the 1990’s, and he did it for free.

According to Grassley, Hurwitz argued that “…the Arizona Supreme Court either to throw out each man’s death sentence and order a new trial or to resentence each to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole.  According to press accounts at the time, Hurwitz said the next step following the Arizona v. Ring ruling should be to re-sentence the inmates to life in prison, saying that allowing the previous death sentence to stand would be a “dangerous precedent.

Clearly, Hurwitz is an activist judge, who cares more about criminals than he does law-abiding citizens.