Judge rules California's decades-old assault weapon ban violates Second Amendment

[GOD Shines Forth!]

"Under no level of heightened scrutiny can the law survive," U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez said before issuing a permanent injunction that takes effect in 30 days…Benitez argued the state’s definition of illegal military-style rifles bans firearms allowed in other states, depriving California gun owners of their rights.

Interesting! I love the smell of freedom in the morning. He also summed up AR-15's quite well:

He compared the AR-15 rifle to a Swiss Army knife, saying it’s "a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment. Good for both home and battle."

Good for both home and battle? Me likey!

Judge rules California's decades-old assault weapon ban violates Second Amendment

 

[pescador]

"Under no level of heightened scrutiny can the law survive," U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez said before issuing a permanent injunction that takes effect in 30 days…Benitez argued the state’s definition of illegal military-style rifles bans firearms allowed in other states, depriving California gun owners of their rights.

Interesting! I love the smell of freedom in the morning. He also summed up AR-15's quite well:

He compared the AR-15 rifle to a Swiss Army knife, saying it’s "a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment. Good for both home and battle."

Good for both home and battle? Me likey!

Judge rules California's decades-old assault weapon ban violates Second Amendment

The right of the people to keep and bear flintlocks shall not be infringed. And of course, those AR-15 owners show up for militia drills, as in "a well-regulated militia", correct?

The whole issue is so distorted it's absurd.

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

The right of the people to keep and bear flintlocks shall not be infringed. And of course, those AR-15 owners show up for militia drills, as in "a well-regulated militia", correct?

The whole issue is so distorted it's absurd.

AR-15's are, dare I say, evolved flintlocks?

 

[essentialsaltes]

The judge has issued a couple other surprising gun control rulings. They are being appealed, as is this one.

 

[pescador]

AR-15's are, dare I say, evolved flintlocks?

AR-15 are diametrically opposite from flintlocks. AR-15s didn't evolve from flintlocks; they were recently designed specifically as semi-automatic weapons of war. Flintlocks were (are) multi-use, single-shot weapons that were used primarily to hunt animals for food.

 

[civilwarbuff]

The right of the people to keep and bear flintlocks shall not be infringed.

Where does it say that?

 

[civilwarbuff]

AR-15 are diametrically opposite from flintlocks. AR-15s didn't evolve from flintlocks; they were recently designed specifically as semi-automatic weapons of war. Flintlocks were (are) multi-use, single-shot weapons that were used primarily to hunt animals for food.

Modern firearms have evolved from the earliest hollow tubes filled with gunpowder and shrapnel. Firearms
To believe otherwise is to believe that modern automobiles did not evolve from steam vehicles in the 1700's. There aren't a lot of new and novel ideas; most everything is built upon some predecessor.
Evolution of the Automobile

 

[Belk]

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess "But they can do it in other states!" Is not going to withstand legal scrutiny.

 

[Desk trauma]

The right of the people to keep and bear flintlocks shall not be infringed.

This is an awful argument whos absurdity really comes out where it is applied to other amendments:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;(but only religions present in 1791) or abridging the freedom of (unamplified) speech (given in person to crowds, does not apply to broadcasting media of any kind as they did not exist in 1791) , or of the (movable type)press (presses made with technology originating post 1791 not included, all electronic means of publication also excluded, product of permissible presses can only be transported with 1791 technology such as horse drawn carts, sail powered shipping or being hand carried) ; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances (so long as this is not done so with technology that came to be post 1791).

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, (literal) papers (all means of storing data that originate post 1791 are not included in this protection and can be accessed freely by the state without warrant at any time regardless of location) , and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

...unless you seriously apply that time period specific nonsense to all amendments in the constitution?

 

[Desk trauma]

AR-15 are diametrically opposite from flintlocks.

How so? Both are firearms designed to kill what one aims and fires them at, one is just a great deal more effective at the task.

AR-15s didn't evolve from flintlocks

They very much did, there are just a lot of iterations between the two.

 

[Goonie]

The AR-15 just like a Swiss army knife, don't open a bottle without it, and it'll definitely remove a stone from a horse's hoove(along with the horse)!!

 

[civilwarbuff]

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess "But they can do it in other states!" Is not going to withstand legal scrutiny.

When it comes to a constitutional right......that's actually not a bad argument because one side or the other must be wrong......think forcing gay marriage on states that would not recognize such.

 

[Desk trauma]

The AR-15 just like a Swiss army knife, don't open a bottle without it, and it'll definitely remove a stone from a horse's hoove(along with the horse)!!

Only if you shoot it from very close range. The small caliber of a standard AR-15 makes them a poor weapon for shooting large animals.

 

[CatsRule2020]

I’m a military man and I think we should ban assault weapons

I tend to think along the lines of this veteran.
Also, when the M-16 (AR-15) was introduced in the Vietnam War, the higher-ups were discouraged that the weapon tore the body up so bad that they were worried that they weren't going to get any live VC or NVA prisoners to question.

 

[Belk]

When it comes to a constitutional right......that's actually not a bad argument because one side or the other must be wrong......think forcing gay marriage on states that would not recognize such.

When it comes to states rights to regulate within their state it sucks as an argument.

 

[civilwarbuff]

When it comes to states rights to regulate within their state it sucks as an argument.

Sorry, but constitutional rights supersede a states border as stated in the supremacy clause:
The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States (Article VI, Clause 2), establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the "supreme Law of the Land", and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws.[1] It provides that state courts are bound by, and state constitutions subordinate to, the supreme law.[2] However, federal statutes and treaties are supreme only if they do not contravene the Constitution.[3] ........wiki

So, as I pointed out one state or another must be wrong.......

 

[essentialsaltes]

So, as I pointed out one state or another must be wrong.......

Since the assault weapon laws in California and other states have withstood other court challenges, I submit it is the judge who is wrong.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Since the assault weapon laws in California and other states have withstood other court challenges, I submit it is the judge who is wrong.

Guess we're gonna find out.......

 

[Belk]

Sorry, but constitutional rights supersede a states border as stated in the supremacy clause:
The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States (Article VI, Clause 2), establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the "supreme Law of the Land", and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws.[1] It provides that state courts are bound by, and state constitutions subordinate to, the supreme law.[2] However, federal statutes and treaties are supreme only if they do not contravene the Constitution.[3] ........wiki

So, as I pointed out one state or another must be wrong.......

I seen to recall an assault rifle ban getting upheld at the federal level. For your argument to be valid there would have to be a constitutional right to assault weapons.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I seen to recall an assault rifle ban getting upheld at the federal level. For your argument to be valid there would have to be a constitutional right to assault weapons.

There is; it is called 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'.....no list of weapons is needed or required.