COURTS (Two Very Hot Issues)

1.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld on of California's most restrictive  gun control provisions. California, D.C., New York and Chicago have perhaps the nation's most draconian gun laws. ) The law gave Calif. officials almost unlimited discretion to deny permits to otherwise qualified applicant who wanted a concealed carry permit.  Such carrying is allowed only with such permits.

"Gov. Greg Abbott on Friday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to block California's limits on concealed carry permit holders in a brief filed with eight other governors.
"The question presented is whether the State of California can single out one group of disfavored citizens--namely, gun owners--and impose unique burdens on their fundamental rights," the brief reads. "Indeed, no other group of private citizens has to prove--to the satisfaction of a government official vested with unreviewable and boundless discretion--that they really need to exercise their fundamental constitutional freedoms."
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/texas-politics/2017/02/17/gov-greg-abbott-wants-supreme-court-block-california-gun-limits

all parts except section IV, by Judge Bea, and by Judge

N.R. Smith as to all parts except section II.B, stated that in

the context of present-day California law, the defendant

counties’ limited licensing of the right to carry concealed

firearms is tantamount to a total ban on the right of an

ordinary citizen to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.

Thus, plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights have been

violated." 

See opinions at
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/06/09/10-56971.pdf

I agree with Abbott.  This in unconstitutional under a number of precedents.
The Supreme Court really needs to take this case and some others on the Second Amendment to provide guidance for lower courts and public officials.

2.  - "The Washington Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday that a florist who refused to provide services for a same-sex wedding broke the state's antidiscrimination law, even though she claimed doing so would violate her religious beliefs."  Although some things about the decision trouble me, I agree with it.  Freedom of religion is not an absolute bar on government action, and should not be used to stymie civil rights and other legislantion."  The ruling is consistent with a majority of the court rulings on this and similar issues.

From a Fox News station,
http://www.fox34.com/story/34523147/washington-court-rules-against-florist-in-gay-wedding-case

See opinion here.
http://www.adfmedia.org/files/ArlenesFlowersWSCopinion.pdf

"The case is one of several involving Christian wedding vendors that have emerged in recent years amid a dramatic expansion of gay rights. Social conservatives have argued that the legalization of same-sex marriage, and the proliferation of state and local laws barring discrimination against people on the basis of sexual orientation, have led to a trampling of religious liberties. They contend that the government should not be forcing these vendors to contribute their artistic talents to same-sex ceremonies, which they oppose on religious grounds, and that the vendors might end up having to abandon their profession to avoid violating their religious beliefs.
But as in Washington, courts have largely sided with the couples and government officials who have called their actions unlawful discrimination"