California unbans cool guns

A federal judge overturned California's three-decade-old ban on assault weapons Friday, ruling that it violates the constitutional right to bear arms. U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez of San Diego ruled that the state's definition of illegal military-style rifles unlawfully deprives law-abiding Californians of weapons commonly allowed in most other states and by the U.S. Supreme Court.

"Under no level of heightened scrutiny can the law survive," Benitez said.

He issued a permanent injunction against enforcement of the law but stayed it for 30 days to give state Attorney General Rob Bonta time to appeal.

Article

Decision

This is a blatant court overreach and puts millions at risk.

Not shocked it was by a right winger.

I want my right to bear arms.

Well the judge isn't wrong. The Second Amendment is CLEARLY not about hunting though hoplophobes try to obfuscate that fact and convince others it is. And when the founding fathers were asked if the 2A included certain types of weapons including cannons, they reaffirmed them that it did. I expect similar cases to be brought to the court in states like NY as well.

@eoten: He is wrong and this is a dangerous overreach. I hope California fights this to the end. And if upheld, get this clown off the bench and try again.

The constitution is a living document, what the founding fathers said holds no weight. Your views should hold up on their own.

Wrong? How is he wrong? The constitution is not, never was, nor will ever be a "living document" outside of states having a convention to add or remove parts of it. You cannot wake up one day and pretend what is written in it means something different, interpret it your own way, then make laws that go against it. What the founding fathers said when they wrote the words that to this day are still the law of the land states are required to follow, hold all the weight.

Trying to call following the written law as "dangerous overreach" because it isn't what you want is comical.

A dangerous overreach by the judge but perfectly acceptable when a state arbitrarily bans a firearm?

What is considered acceptable arms within the 2nd amendment?

The second amendment is CLEARLY about well regulated militias.

When it comes to the second amendment conservatives bend themselves into pretzels over literal readings of the constitution. It's where self proclaimed "textualists" show that they are just being political hacks.

@zaryia: Still better than originalists.

@horgen: That’s why the constitution is a living document, to discuss those things. And what a well regulated militia is. Conservatives love to ignore that.

@Solaryellow: It wasn’t arbitrary……..

Musket rifles that take a full minute to reload one shot.

Some people will say it was all about muskets while ignoring the fact that muskets were military grade hardware back then. During the revolutionary war, they allowed private merchant ships to carry cannons on them.

Musket was a generic term used for any handheld long gun FYI.

Thanks, tips. FYI that generic term wasn't used until mid 19th century, well after the 2nd amendment was written. Before that, musket was used specifically for muzzle loaders

The second amendment also did not apply to semi automatic weapons.

This is true. Rifled muzzleloaders at the time were more common civilian weapons. The reason military didn't use them is because of the fouling caused by the burning of black powder, the rifling would get gummed up and have to be cleaned more regularly. They couldn't handle the higher volume of fire over a longer period of time that muskets could.

Still waiting on TheNation (isn't that Yessir?) to tell us how this puts lives at risk.

So... A minigun?

Did I say a minigun? Muskets were the equivalent of today's "assault rifles." The purpose of the Second Amendment as laid out by the founders is for the citizens to be able to defend themselves from modern military. This is also why merchants were explicitly told by them that it protected their right to arm themselves with cannons as well. It has absolutely nothing to do with hunting like you people seem to think it does.

And lastly, the founders were well aware of firearms that could shoot as quickly as modern assault rifles. They existed then. They didn't object to those either. A free people doesn't have to ask their government for permission.

So you two are the same account?

I am just curious where the line is drawn for a weapon to be within the second amendment.

I look forward to buying some new awesome pew-pews.

I thought you were responding to me saying muskets were used for their higher rate of fire and ability to go longer without cleaning.

also, the predecessor to the minigun, the Gatling gun, took much of its inspiration from the Puckle gun, which has been available since the early 1700s. Long before the 2A was written. And who should draw that line? Do you really trust government enough to draw them when it is made up by people like Pelosi, Schumer, McConnel, etc?

I am looking forward to suits being filed in other states like NY, Maryland, Illinois, etc to have their stupid laws tossed out as well.

Like I said what would happen, the conservatives ITT are turning themselves into pretzels over the literal statements in the constitution. They can't square them. US has quite the gun violence epidemic. This gun infatuation, including the ones posted by far right people ITT, is actually super bizarre.

But the facts don't lie either way,

States with strict gun laws have fewer firearms deaths. Here's how your state stacks up (cnbc.com)

Would that dissertation be based on emotion or facts?

That remains to be seen. But I'm guessing he cannot explain how either way.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Libs always forget the bolded part. The militia is the people.

The term "right" applied to "the people" appears several times in the constitution, and it always means an individual right for all citizens.

Yup that's one of many pretzel moments I predicted.

That's not true but the cons do what you just did. Cherry pick and pretend the beginning of the sentence isn't there.

@vl4d_l3nin: Do you know what a militia is? And it says well regulated, not everybody go gun crazy.

Then why not ban ALL semi auto firearms rather than just scary looking rifles, excuse me, "military grade" weapons?

The Supreme Court is already taking a case from NY; it will be interesting to see how they address conceal carry later on the court calendar. Will also be looking over some investments if the State's appeal fails. A very large market opening up in California again will be very fruitful.

@Stevo_the_gamer: Will be overturned later. This is only happening because Trump gave conservatives the court. When the left gets it back the laws will go back to the way they should:

@Solaryellow: Not all semi automatic weapons are military grade.

Except AR-15s and AKs are still legal in California. The only thing California banned were cosmetic features in an attempt to inconvenience people who own them, not to actually protect anyone or stop crime because they're still available in an altered, and just as lethal configuration. So again, you make an assertion based on emotion, not fact. Unless you're going to tell me the way a gun LOOKS makes it more dangerous, you lost on that one.

You must be doing pretty well monetarily if your crystal ball is that good.

It'll likely be overturned by the 9th, but the 9th itself is the most overturned by the Supreme Court, where ultimately, the original ruling is going to be upheld. This isn't happening because of any political affiliation of judges, it's happening because California doesn't have the authority to go against the constitution.

Also, the judge who overturned this was not a Trump appointee.

I guess that's a no then.

Cherry-picked? I just mentioned that the militia and the people are one in the same. If that wasn't the case, there would be no need to mention "right of the people". It would be the right of the militia. You are the one who cherry picks by constantly mentioning the "well regulated militia" without even finishing the rest of the sentence.

So what is the "peoples right to bear arms"? What does that mean, if not the ability to arm oneself?

@vl4d_l3nin: Read the entire thing. It regards a well regulated militia. You can’t ignore half of the amendment. The people’s right to bear arms will not be infringed in the guise of keeping a well regulated militia. Key part well regulated.

Nope. Back when the passed that amendment they didn't have a standing army so the people were allowed to have guns because they were a militia that trained weekends.

So it "shall not be infringed" unless it is to be infringed?

Y'all got you're head wrapped around "well regulated" thinking that means government intervention, when this was written during a time when people thought standing armies were a threat to liberty. Well regulated just means well trained, and it's a personal responsibility.

Yeah it's very clear.

But screw logic and facts, they have an bizarre and unhealthy obsession with these objects of death.