Other State CA judge rules 2A doesn't apply to semi-autos

[bbbass]

At Trump has several new judges on the 9th, so just Maybe it goes good

Hard to say. More often, political appointees do things that are surprisingly counter-intuitive. The track record for judge appts is not good.

 

[Slobray]

Yes, you are right. It is a dangerous precedent if allowed to stand. And it is likely headed to the 9th Circus, where nothing is certain. But I can't imagine even they would be that duplicitous....

I wouldn't put anything past the 9th Circus, as it wouldn't surprise me it they added even more ridiculous reasons why the 2A doesn't protect semi-autos..........



Ray

 

[bbbass]

I wouldn't put anything past the 9th Circus, as it wouldn't surprise me it they added even more ridiculous reasons why the 2A doesn't protect semi-autos..........



Ray

And then it would go to the Supreme Court... where it's already been addressed, right? No? IDK.

 

[Squidly]

The Second Amendment doesn't protect anything. It restricts government infringement . Our overlords have successfully re-framed the argument to which guns are protected and which guns are not protected. And we keep falling into their false argument. If we can't remove the brainwashing, we are fighting a loosing battle.

 

[bbbass]

we are fighting a loosing battle.

I had a "loosing" battle in the private room this morning... I won!

 

[ma96782]

LOL.....

Aloha, Mark

 

[Jonnyuma]

I have to wonder about the argument presented by the CR&PC. I'm sure they were well thought out and persuasive... except to an activist judge who already has his/her mind made up. There is 0 research that supports her assertions... they sound made-up on the spot or culled from The Trace, Vox, and Salon.com.

Or she has been threatened or bribed.

Just to be perfectly clear, this is me accusing that judge of taking bribes (at worst) or just being an activist stooge.

 

[The Heretic]

Staton called the rifles "incredibly effective killing machines" that are not needed for self-defense

Because only firearms that are non-lethal should be used for self-defense?

 

[bbbass]

Because only firearms that are non-lethal should be used for self-defense?

That would suck.... rubber bullets, squirt pistols, and harsh language!

 

[Diamondback]

Back to Garands, boys... if you can't shoot 'em or stab 'em, you can at least use 'em for Batting Practice.

 

[Caveman Jim]

That would suck.... rubber bullets, squirt pistols, and harsh language!

I've got no problem with #3, I'll cuss a perp into submission, I don't need to waste boolits....

 

[uberguy]

I think this is a good ruling ... because it's certain to make it to the Supreme Court, presuming the 9th rules liberally in favor of upholding it, as they most always do - and we'll have the right case to go before the SCOTUS regarding banning commonly owned semi-auto weapons (handguns AND rifles).

And we'll win there.

 

[bbbass]

I think this is a good ruling ... because it's certain to make it to the Supreme Court, presuming the 9th rules liberally in favor of upholding it, as they most always do - and we'll have the right case to go before the SCOTUS regarding banning commonly owned semi-auto weapons (handguns AND rifles).

And we'll win there.

You go to court, you never know what will happen. I wish it wasn't necessary...

 

[uberguy]

You go to court, you never know what will happen. I wish it wasn't necessary...

Considering the current and expanding bans and/or limits on semi-auto firearms, it's inevitable this will go to the supreme court.

Better to have an outrageous, egregious and over-the-top ruling like this one to argue in court.

Better still if Ginsburg at 85 in declining health, should need to retire.

 

[Boboclown]

She decided that semi-automatic rifles should be deemed "dangerous and unusual weapons" that are used in military service, not civilian homes, and therefore not protected by the Second Amendment.

Second Amendment was always about the people being a militia, or forming a militia, as such the citizen is to be armed. Ignorance is a convenience for her I guess.

In her ruling, Staton "cited congressional findings that semi-automatic rifles have a rate of fire, 300 to 500 rounds per minute, that makes them 'virtually undistinguishable' from machine guns, and that they are the 'weapons of choice' for gangs, hate groups, and 'mentally deranged persons bent on mass murder,'" the San Francisco Chronicle described.

Except "machine guns" have a higher rate of fire and can be distinguished easily, the weapons of choice for gang activity would be a handgun as its easier to conceal, hate groups use anything (and also a pretty loose term, any group they disagree with could be a hate group), mass murderers will use whatever they can get. She's as stupid as stupid gets.

She added that there is clear evidence that the bullets fired by semi-automatic rifles "can pass through both humans and buildings and therefore pose a greater risk of striking innocent bystanders."

Except physics don't work that way. She needs to get a decent understanding of physics before making outlandish claims such as that.

 

[awshoot]

Considering the current and expanding bans and/or limits on semi-auto firearms, it's inevitable this will go to the supreme court.

Better to have an outrageous, egregious and over-the-top ruling like this one to argue in court.

Better still if Ginsburg at 85 in declining health, should need to retire.

Yeah, every single thing she said is false. I suspect even Jerry Mich-howeveryouspellhislastname couldn't hit 3-500 trigger pulls per minute. Maybe for a few seconds but nobody's joints could take that kind sustained repetitive motion for long periods. As for semi-autos going through multiple people or whatever hooey that was, she has apparently never handled or fired a 10/22.

The basis for her ruling is beyond ludicrous. She might as well have referenced Chewbaca for the factual basis ( Chewbacca defense - Wikipedia ). This is the type of case that would be nice to get to SCOTUS. And while it is true that one can always lose in court, if the court did make such a ruling, it would be nice to know that we've actually slid that far.

 

[bbbass]

the weapons of choice for gang activity would be a handgun

My understanding is that the most common banger gun is a .380... example: Lorcin... they are cheap and easy to conceal. 2nd most common is a 9 if I remember correctly.

 

[Boboclown]

My understanding is that the most common banger gun is a .380... example: Lorcin... they are cheap and easy to conceal. 2nd most common is a 9 if I remember correctly.

Easy to conceal. No gang member is gonna waltz around with an AK, copper dun shot him if he do.

 

[User 1234]

This is a "get myself noticed for future liberal presidential nominations" ruling.

 

[etrain16]

Judges can overstep their authority and violate the constitution all they want. Pretty much commonplace any longer. These types of "rulings" happen so often now as to be laughable.

Ultimately, they don't have any real power unless they have the means to enforce them. And what time is showing us is that these types of laws/rulings have little teeth, because people simply choose to ignore them. Maybe a handful get caught, but so many more simply move on, ignoring this garbage. Without real enforcement, there are no teeth in these rulings.

Even New Zealand, who anti's love to tout as "doing the right thing" with gun laws (bans, forced buy-backs) after the shooting there, have been forced to see this truth - the majority of gun owners will refuse to conform when a government goes too far. New York, LA, CT, all are seeing what happens when you go too far - the public simply ignores them. And, as expected, no enforcement happens, proving the law/rulings have no teeth. They must rely solely on fear to drive the masses to comply. But the masses don't seem to be too concerned, overall. Pizzed off, yes, but not concerned.