Judge rules California's ban on assault
weapons unconstitutional
NBC News,
by
Dennis Romero
Original Article
Posted By: Dreadnought,
6/5/2021 12:34:14 AM
SAN DIEGO — A federal judge on Friday struck down California's ban on assault weapons as unconstitutional but left plenty of time for the state to file an appeal. Judge Roger T. Benitez, who has favored pro-gun groups in past rulings, called the AR-15 rifle, used in many of the nation's deadliest mass shootings, "a perfect combination of a home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment."
"Yet, the State of California makes it a crime to have an AR15 type rifle," Benitez wrote. "Therefore, this Court declares the California statutes to be unconstitutional."
He praised the AR-15 as a rifle that should be formally protected by the law for its "militia readiness."
Some rare common sense from the bench - and a major defeat for the gun-grabbing left. Benitez has steadily chipped away at the leftist nonsense imposed by California by applying the 2A as written.
Tens of millions of AR (and AK) pattern rifles have never been involved in a 'mass-shooting' as the enemedia likes to phrase it. Banning a type of rifle (or any other firearm) that is owned by countless millions of gun owners is intellectually lazy and makes criminals of the law abiding, while doing nothing at all about the real criminals themselves. Many of us say simply - ENOUGH.
47 people like this.
Obviously, a Judge not on the Epstein flight manifest
Good ruling
59 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
GardenGal 6/5/2021 1:42:30 AM (No. 806292)
ANd what fake reporting from NBC. FIrst of all, the Boulder Colorado shooter did not have a rifle, he had a handgun so not a so-called "assault rifle" and certainly not an AR-15. Furthermore, honest reporting would include that most mass shootings are committed with handguns- by far. That is nationwide.
35 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
DVC 6/5/2021 2:09:12 AM (No. 806303)
Actually, #3 it was an AR-15 type of handgun.
9 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
RuckusTom 6/5/2021 6:33:37 AM (No. 806356)
Hi Dennis. Could you kindly give your definition of an "assault rifle"?
And
"Gov. Gavin Newsom was indignant in a statement late Friday.
"The fact that this judge compared the AR-15 — a weapon of war that’s used on the battlefield "
Uhhh ... I don't believe AR-15s are or have been used on the battlefield ... You might want to look up "civilian" and "military" and get back to us.
27 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
gwholmessr 6/5/2021 7:05:47 AM (No. 806372)
Does that say a “California Judge”? Did hell freeze over while I was asleep? Wow what’s in my coffee?
25 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
red1066 6/5/2021 8:11:12 AM (No. 806417)
The AR-15 is not an assault weapon. It is not a military grade weapon. I'm tired of media of all kinds calling the AR-15 as an assault. This like so much everything else the media puts out is a lie. No country would send it's soldiers into combat with an AR-15.
20 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
bigfatslob 6/5/2021 8:21:01 AM (No. 806423)
AR-15s used in MANY of the nation's deadliest mass shooting? Did I miss something in the last decades of following mass shootings? I don't remember this statistic this like not reporting (NBC) the real weapon used to build a case against a 'black gun'.
Real clever to criminalize law abiding citizens of ownership of a product that another group does not like. Banning all red cars because they look like they go faster than the white one. Don't educate or debate the left on something they know nothing about is what I live by. Let stupid people be stupid don't give them help to overcome it.
19 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
Zigrid 6/5/2021 9:13:09 AM (No. 806473)
So much for the democrat's gun grab effort...at least for now...if guns insure a citizen's freedom and safety... then WHY are the democrats so ready to grab this constitutional guarantee?... could it be because... an armed militia threatens their power and control...and china doesn't want to face an armed citizenry... remember what happened to Hong Kong because they were not armed... fighting dictators with words and law is futile....remember Tiananmen Square where some young Chinese people tried to negotiate with a chi/com tank...
6 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
FleetUSA 6/5/2021 10:33:47 AM (No. 806541)
NBC makes the judge's opinion sound shallow.
5 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
columba 6/5/2021 10:45:10 AM (No. 806555)
The rifle mentioned is not an assault weapon
6 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
PrayerWarrior 6/5/2021 10:49:55 AM (No. 806561)
This is why we life long Californians left. The crazies are running the asylum known as the State Government. This judge is as rare as a Hope Diamond!
10 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
cold porridge 6/5/2021 11:08:38 AM (No. 806578)
"the authors of the Second Amendment could never have imagined a weapon originally designed for modern warfare being used for personal defense."
The left is not satisfied with telling America how to think. They also seem to want to tell us exactly what our founders were thinking.
5 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
Luandir 6/5/2021 11:15:05 AM (No. 806587)
"[G]un control advocates have long argued the authors of the Second Amendment could never have imagined a weapon originally designed for modern warfare being used for personal defense."
Really?
In 1787, the very same muskets used in the Revolution WERE being used for home defense. The Bill of Rights contains no expiration dates for what might appear in the future.
6 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
Gordon Freeman 6/5/2021 11:22:21 AM (No. 806598)
I don't think this is a done deal. You know the state is going to appeal this to the 9th circus court. Then the government will get what their desired results. But then it go to the Supreme court and that jackwagon Robert's will refuse to hear the case. Back to commie time table.
4 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
Rumblehog 6/5/2021 11:25:29 AM (No. 806603)
That Judge knows his U.S. Constitution. He's clearly not in the running to join the U.S. Ninth Circus.
8 people like this.
Reply 17 - Posted by:
LonestarM3 6/5/2021 11:33:11 AM (No. 806612)
Good first step, especially as it occurred in California, where the howling of liberal loons will be loudest.
Will now go to the 9th Circus Court of Appeals, which will almost certainly reverse it.
Then it will go to the US Supreme Court, and the ruling there will
give us an indication of whether the US Constitution still means anything
to our "government."
3 people like this.
Reply 18 - Posted by:
DVC 6/5/2021 11:40:30 AM (No. 806618)
#7....don't stake too much on that argument. While strictly true, the differences are not massive, although the differences will get a civilian 10 years in prison, so they ARE legally massive.
The primary real differences are 1) M4 carbines have 14.5" barrels, which is under the legal 16" minimum barrel length for rifles for civilians and 2) M16s and M4s have the provision for some version of fully automatic firing. Either a selector to fully automatic or 3 round burst fire in addition to a selector position for semi-auto (one shot per trigger pull) capability. AR-15s can only fire semi-automatically, which is one shot for one trigger pull.
So, while issue M4/M16 carbines/rifles retain a 3-shot or full auto capability, most of the time, it is not used as a matter of SOP. So most of the time, these guns function the same as an AR-15.
Are AR-15s "battlefield weapons"...strictly speaking, they are not, but they are also not hugely different. But that can be said of ANY semi-auto rifle, and semi-auto rifles have been available for sale for well over a century, beginning in 1906, IIRC.
1 person likes this.
Reply 19 - Posted by:
DVC 6/5/2021 12:33:07 PM (No. 806669)
Excellent point, #14. Muskets were literally the military weapon of the day. They intentionally sacrificed accuracy for rapid firing capability. Hunters used rifles, which were very accurate, but extremely slow to load. Muskets could be loaded far faster, but at the expense of much reduced accuracy.
So it is very much the case that muskets were the military weapons of the day, and were the choice for militia service. The other big difference, and it was a very important thing in the day of extremely slow reloading, muskets mounted bayonets and civilian rifles and shotguns did not. Often, the bayonet became a primary weapon in close in combat, far more important than the ability to fire.
2 people like this.
Some legal stuff to add to the discussion. CA defines an "assault weapon" as:
1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
B) A thumbhole stock.
C) A folding or telescoping stock.
D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
E) A flash suppressor.
F) A forward pistol grip.
2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.
1 person likes this.
Reply 21 - Posted by:
Foghorn 6/5/2021 3:38:06 PM (No. 806841)
There is no clear-cut definition of an assault weapon. Therefore, the judge's decision was correct. In addition, the Second Amendment says gun ownership 'shall not be infringed'.
1 person likes this.
Reply 22 - Posted by:
Omen55 6/5/2021 7:26:52 PM (No. 806949)
Bad news for dem as any real lawyer will know that even if the 9th Circus overturns it will go to SCOTUS & knock dem down with 5 or 6 affirming Judge Roger T. Benitez😊
0 people like this.
Reply 23 - Posted by:
doctorfixit 6/5/2021 9:34:15 PM (No. 807015)
A great day for Liberty, the Constitution, and the Right to Self Defense.
A bad day for the enemies of Freedom.
By the way, lefties, every weapon is an assault weapon. Duh.
0 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Dreadnought"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)