Notwithstanding any other law, any person, including an entity, attorney, or law firm, who seeks declaratory or injunctive relief to prevent this state, a political subdivision, a governmental entity or public official in this state, or a person in this state from enforcing any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or any other type of law that regulates or restricts firearms, or that represents any litigant seeking that relief, is jointly and severally liable to pay the attorney’s fees and costs of the prevailing party…. Any person, including an entity, attorney, or law firm, who seeks declaratory or injunctive relief as described in subdivision (a), shall not be deemed a prevailing party under this section or any other provision of this chapter. [More]
Constitutional attorney Mark W. Smith explains how this will financially intimidate challengers of California citizen disarmament edicts.
[Via Jess]
At what point does open defiance become a thing?
“At what point does open defiance become a thing?”
They’re already openly defying Federal immigration law and getting away with it. So that precedent has already been set.
So, ‘challenge us and we will break you’?