California assault weapon ban. Ninth Circuit Upholds Constitution, FINALLY!

[The Heretic]

California Assault Weapons Ban 'Disrespects' Freedom, Federal Judge Writes

A judicial opinion striking down California's long-standing assault weapons ban has raised eyebrows from legal scholars for its rhetoric. California has said it will appeal the ruling.

www.npr.org

 

[ma96782]

Only took three decades..

Yup......and they could also pass another law that would essentially do the same thing.

The issue of the banning of certain weapons (just because someone doesn't like what it looks like or could do or does) needs to be once and for all addressed by the SCOTUS.

BTW......
One of the reasons for me NOT moving to CA, when I retired (back in 2003). Was the CA politics. Rrrrright.....they don't like my gun collection but they'll invite illegals to come and stay.

Aloha, Mark

 

[Alexx1401]

Are they really any better? Scalia was the only Justice with any personal interest in firearm in many decades, as far as I know.

One of the posters here, think Stomper? Had said many times, don't hope and expect the courts to protect your rights. Not an exact quote but the gist of what he has said many times. He is spot on. As I have been saying for a good while. A LOT of gun owners will not lift a finger to vote, or worst actually vote for the law makers hosing them. Then scream about the courts when the courts do not step in and "fix it". The voters are getting what they ask for. Many of them should know better and just do not care until its too late sadly.

 

[Dr Prepper]

Yup......and they could also pass another law that would essentially do the same thing.

The issue of the banning of certain weapons (just because someone doesn't like what it looks like or could do or does) needs to be once and for all addressed by the SCOTUS.

BTW......
One of the reasons for me NOT moving to CA, when I retired (back in 2003). Was the CA politics. Rrrrright.....they don't like my gun collection but they'll invite illegals to come and stay.

Aloha, Mark

Yeah my sister offered at one time for me to come stay in their massive house in for employment down there. I was like pfff.. Keep em.
Honestly from what i saw last time. I don't ever care to go back there for ANY reason. Not even to visit. My sister is pretty triggered, she might try some kind of Scientology style confined intervention when she knows im disarmed.
Not like she ever visits me anyway. Why should i have to travel to that hell hole.

 

[GWS]

The only three families beside myself that moved up here from the PRK are conservative gun owners.

Of course, I wouldn't bother knowing any other type of people, anyway.

 

[Dr Prepper]

Stalin is credited with saying something to the effect of, 'it doesn't matter who votes, it matters who counts the votes.'

Sad but totally true! Dictraitors worldwide are livin' and dyin' by this code.

 

[RVTECH]

Late to the thread because I just climbed out from under my 'rock' but were AR 15s originally banned entirely in CA? I thought they were legal in somewhat 'neutered' form such as with the 'bullet buttons' , no vertical forestock hand grips etc.

A brief description of CA AR law will bring me up to speed!

 

[Ura-Ki]

Late to the thread because I just climbed out from under my 'rock' but were AR 15s originally banned entirely in CA? I thought they were legal in somewhat 'neutered' form such as with the 'bullet buttons' , no vertical forestock hand grips etc.

A brief description of CA AR law will bring me up to speed!

Cali first went after "Features" such as pistol grips and stocks, then it was vertical grips and flash hiders, and then bullet buttons! Now it's a fixed magazine that you have to break the rifle open to drop the mag for a reload!
What's crazy is as each change comes, they drop the last, so you can have what ever you want, as long as it cannot drop the mag free while the rifle is in one piece!
All semi autos had to be registered though!

 

[RVTECH]

Cali first went after "Features" such as pistol grips and stocks,

So then technically AR15s have been legal (so to speak) but with non-typical features ?

SO the overturn on the ban basically removes the feature restrictions and will allow 'conventional' ARs correct ?

 

[Ura-Ki]

So then technically AR15s have been legal (so to speak) but with non-typical features ?

SO the overturn on the ban basically removes the feature restrictions and will allow 'conventional' ARs correct ?

I believe so!

 

[RedRover]

A Constitutionalist-weighted court thanks to President Trump, the "jackhole" who does not have the best interests of the people in mind.

Why hang your hopes on a court that is almost half-full of "jackhole" appointees?? Seems a little disingenuous to lump in Trump with Biden, as if they are equally bad.

Say what you will about Trump's rhetoric and personality, but he got things done that made this country better for every citizen, despite obstructionism from the left, the media, and even many right-wing individuals!

Apparently the rest of my post went right over your head.

Carry on.

 

[GWS]

Late to the thread because I just climbed out from under my 'rock' but were AR 15s originally banned entirely in CA? I thought they were legal in somewhat 'neutered' form such as with the 'bullet buttons' , no vertical forestock hand grips etc.

A brief description of CA AR law will bring me up to speed!

OK
After some jerk shot up a school in Stockton CA the legislature passed the Roberti-Roos assault weapons control act of 1989
This bill banned guns by name FN-FAL, FNC Colt AR-15 and so on
Gun makers went around that by creating new models without dangerous bayonet lugs and such so in 1999, SB-23 passed which banned guns by features so if your semi automatic rifle took a detachable magazine AND had a bayonet lug OR pistol grip OR thumbhole stock OR collapsible stock OR a flash hider it was now an "Assault Weapon" Notably, the Mini-14 and M1A (with a muzzle brake) were unaffected by this bill. Another part of SB-23 was the ban on magazines holding over 10 rounds. The first work around was fixing the magazine You locked a 10 round magazine in the well with a "Maglock" or similar device. So no longer a detachable magazine
Then people noted that the law said magazine could only be removed by use of a tool and the bullet button was born which was a mag release with a small hole in it You used the tip of a .223 round to press the tiny button and drop the magazine.
Later came the fin grips and other ugly add-ons to circumvent the stupid law. In 2016 Gunmaggeddon occurred. A whole slew of anti-gun legislation, the worst of which was the outright ban of magazines holding more than 10 rounds. By July of 2019 you would have to store your magazines out of state, sell them out of state or turn them over to the police. Another part required background checks to buy ammo and banned mail order ammo!
Lawsuits slowly worked their way through the courts and in the spring of 2019 , Judge Roger Benitez (May God bless and keep him.) issued a ruling in Duncan v Becerra saying the ban on magazines constituted an illegal taking and put a stay on the whole hi-cap mag ban. Freedom week followed in which magazines of all capacities flooded into the PRK. Freedom week, by extension, also legalized every magazine that had been snuck into the state since 2001 because how the hell could anyone know when you acquired that magazine now? Judge Benitez suspended Freedom Week 7 or 8 days into it to pre-empt another court's banning the magazines outright and re-instating the July turn-in. By doing so, he kept the ball in his court and 2 years later the folks in California still legally own their magazines.
And that same Judge Benitez has now issued a ruling saying the "Assault weapon" ban itself is unconstitutional.

Gotta love this man. A rare judge who has read and understands the Bill of Rights.

 

[billdeserthills]

So then technically AR15s have been legal (so to speak) but with non-typical features ?

SO the overturn on the ban basically removes the feature restrictions and will allow 'conventional' ARs correct ?

That overturning of Cali's ban won't legally begin for 30 days, which gives Cali time to get it stopped while this decision is appealed

 

[GWS]

Here's a pretty useful analysis of the case from the California Rifle and Pistol Association

CRPA's Take on the Miller Decision

 

[RedRover]

This seems to imply I misunderstood some aspect of your post; care to explain? You very clearly lumped Trump and Biden together (negatively), to which my reply was directed. Perhaps your post went over your own head?

Yeah. I'll repeat it.. They're both Jack-holes. Any Conservative POTUS could have appointed judges to the court. If you think he had anything to do with personally selecting those choices...

Please enlighten me about all of the great things the Grifter-in-Chief did for the American people, (and to keep it on topic) specifically pertaining to the 2A.

Yeah, I wasn't a big fan of his rhetoric, here's a little that I recall...

On UBCs:

Interviewer: "And so I think we have a unique opportunity to get comprehensive background checks, but, Mr. President, it's going to have to be you that brings the Republicans to the table on this because, right now, the gun lobby would stop it in its tracks."

Trump: "But you have a different president now … You went through a lot of presidents and you didn't get it done. You have a different president. And I think, maybe, you have a different attitude, too. I think people want to get it done. I like that responsibility. I really do. I think it's time. It's time that a president stepped up, and we haven't had them. And I'm talking Democrat and Republican presidents — they have not stepped up."

"We have tremendous support for really common sense, sensible, important background checks. Very strong improvement and strengthening of background checks will be fully backed by White House."

On Red Flag Laws:

"I like taking the guns early .. to go to court would have taken a long time."

"Take the guns first, go through due process second."

"we must make sure that those judged to pose a grave risk to public safety do not have access to firearms, and that, if they do, those firearms can be taken through rapid due process. That is why I have called for red flag laws, also known as extreme risk protection orders."

On Bump Stocks:

"I'm going to write the bump stock; essentially, write it out. So you won't have to worry about bump stock."

On 'Assault' weapons:

"I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today's internet technology we should be able to tell within 72 hours if a potential gun owner has a record."




As for his business acumen.. If he had invested the initial monies his daddy gave him into an Index fund, his net worth would be 5X times what he claims it to be at the present. The guy has failed at almost any business that he's started, filing for bankruptcy multiple times, and leaving subs/lenders on the hook for millions. He is a crook Shyster that has never given two craps about anybody but himself.

Biden is a creepy scumbag Pedo, but for people to give Trump a pass while being one too is as hypocritical as it gets. Singing "grab 'em by the pussy" while barging into the teen miss USA pageant's dressing room to cop a looksie.

I look at hardcore Trumpers the same as I look at hard-core Leftists. Mentally unstable 'Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs'.

 

[Camelfilter]

Folks, this thread is about the 9th circuit ruling overturning unconstitutional California law.

-DO NOT DEFLECT, NOR GET DRAGGED INTO ANY OTHER DEFLECTING DISCUSSION.-

 

[Camelfilter]

Folks, this thread is about the 9th circuit ruling overturning unconstitutional California law.

-DO NOT DEFLECT, NOR GET DRAGGED INTO ANY OTHER DEFLECTING DISCUSSION.-

Again:

Folks, this thread is about the 9th circuit ruling overturning unconstitutional California law.

-DO NOT DEFLECT, NOR GET DRAGGED INTO ANY OTHER DEFLECTING DISCUSSION.-

 

[RVTECH]

Folks, this thread is about the 9th circuit ruling overturning unconstitutional California law.

OK - SO does CA have any chance of reversing this within the 30 day period and if so how could they accomplish it?

 

[Ura-Ki]

OK - SO does CA have any chance of reversing this within the 30 day period and if so how could they accomplish it?

It's my understanding that the State Attorney General has 30 days to counter this, and it cannot just be a "I reject this" but must explain in agonizing detail why! Given Judge B's thoroughness, this will not be an easy job, and I bet a bunch on assistants, clerks, and interns are gonna be burning the mid night oil to come up with something!

 

[GWS]

OK - SO does CA have any chance of reversing this within the 30 day period and if so how could they accomplish it?

The state of California will do what it always does
Delay and throw smoke. They will find some way to hang things up.