> Duncan v. Becerra ruling speaks to the arbitrary nature of the California laws.

As swellingly vague as a concept like "the arbitrary nature of California laws" is, it only almost expands to a breadth where it could cover a retreat from "law intentionally crafted to annoy and alienate gun owners," from which it is still notably distinct.

I can't say I knew very much about Duncan v. Becerra before your comment, and I am not a lawyer. But I just went and read what appears to be the ruling from Judge Benitez [1], and it appears to be 86 pages on the merits of a California law with very little to say about its intent (beyond acknowledging state intent as one of safety, anyway). Specific conclusions that annoying and alienating gun owners were among motives when the specific relevant law was crafted seem to be absent, and this while Benitez is clearly comfortable pulling a wide variety of arguments into his opinion that the law would not achieve its intended purposes and doesn't meet proposed tests around 2nd amendment muster. I'd guess that if evidence about the motives you attributed to those crafting this law were available, there'd be no reason for him to leave them out. Additionally, Benitez makes pointed care about not even attributing motives to mass shooters who have in fact selected large capacity magazines, on the basis that short of recorded statements from them, there's no way to know what those motives are. Presumably he would make the same deference to legislators. Perhaps, if his ruling is among the influences for what you're bringing to the thread, you could follow suit.

Or perhaps there's other evidence which allows you to confidently speak about lawmaking motives appears in some supporting court documentation you'll be happy to point to? Or perhaps your appeal to authority -- an unspecified authority no less ("Those who know enough to do a technical analysis of such laws") -- has another specific authority behind it?

That is, assuming you're still defending the statement "Those who know enough to do a technical analysis of such laws, for example, those in California, often come to the conclusion that harassment of the gun owners might be the intended outcome." There's always the option to walk that back as an overstep.

> You are doing a rather shallow analysis, which inherently contains a misreading of my assertion. I was speculating about laws as a contributing factor. This doesn't rule out other factors. If anything, the evidence you cited possibly supports gun laws as a contributing factor.

I suppose things would be so much easier if we could just narrate primacy in arguments rather than articulating them, right?

Or to be more plain: show, don't tell. If my analysis above is "shallow", explain how. If I misread your assertion, restate your assertion with unequivocal clarity.

And if data that shows the overwhelming balance of territory where CWD is spreading appears to be in states with laws friendly to gun ownership (as what's in the article appears to) supports your assertion that firearm restrictions contribute to the spread of CWD, you might have to do more than just say so, because that's... counterintuitive, to put it generously.

> I think your tone and the thread pretty much speaks for itself.

The funny thing is that even this portion of your comment appears to be false -- if you really believed that, why come back to further argue what "speaks for itself"?

Especially armed with a brief legal reference that doesn't seem to support your assertion (whatever its effectiveness in judging the merits rather than the intent of the law) along with an attempt to substitute a narrative of argument for elaborating one.

And if we're going to talk about tone, well, you can account for the tonal contributions of unsupported attribution of harassment as motive behind lawmaking.

[1] https://crpa.org/news/blogs/crpanews-special-alert-win-dunca...