Author Topic: Judge Overturns California's 3-Decade-Old Ban On Assault Weapons (DU goes nuts)  (Read 281 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Patriot Guard Rider

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2092
  • Reputation: +256/-16
  • Yes, really. Liberals DO disgust me.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142752536

A federal judge Friday overturned California’s three-decade-old ban on assault weapons, 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.

Quote
quaint (547 posts)
1. Another sick judge. This better get overturned.

Guns in s state with almost 40 million people has nothing to do with states having populations under a milliion.

Quote
Kickin' with disgust!

And

Quote

Marthe48 (6,764 posts)
3. Wrong way judge

fewer assault weapons, not more.


Between covid and crazies with guns, I might never leave the house again.

Thanks for nothing, dumbass.

Good, stay home. One less Karen to worry about.

Quote
elias7 (2,714 posts)
6. What a twisted mind - "good for both home and battle"

Brings up media (dog whistle) hyperbole as if the media is biased in over reporting on mass shootings the past years, while neglecting the opposite gun glorification bias by NRA and social media.

Quote

 patphil (2,250 posts)
9. Good for home and battle!

Are you F**kin' kidding me?

If that's the grounds for allowing a weapon, they why not have machine guns, mortars, and surface to surface missiles?
The right to bear arms doesn't mean any weapon you choose. It means you can have a gun. It's not an open-ended right.
The second amendment was written when the only guns were muzzle loaders for God's sake.

Lets have a bit of sanity here!

More ridiculousness at the link..
Liberals disgust me. (Now I don't have to remember to put it on each post).

Because only the left goes searching for that which is not there in a desperate attempt to be offended about something.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams

Many people do not see evil until the gas is flowing into the chamber. That is why they get on the trains in the first place.

Offline landofconfusion80

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3528
  • Reputation: +324/-109
I could own a tank or pretty much any fighter jet I feel like having. The primitives worry too much
One Who Grows (244 posts)
20. absolute bullshit. the cave is unspeakably vile.

I don't know how any of you can live with yourselves.

:)

Offline old dog 2

  • pork eating infidel
  • Just Off Probation
  • *
  • Posts: 109
  • Reputation: +18/-1
You actually can own a working tank capable of firing.  Saw one on Pawn Stars a while back.  $1,000,000 for a Sherman actually used on Iwo Jima, several others available at the sales lot out in the desert..  Test fired it and blew up a car.  Chumly also test fired a vintage flame thrower.  They bought the flame thrower for four large.

Offline thundley4

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39983
  • Reputation: +2111/-124
You actually can own a working tank capable of firing.  Saw one on Pawn Stars a while back.  $1,000,000 for a Sherman actually used on Iwo Jima, several others available at the sales lot out in the desert..  Test fired it and blew up a car.  Chumly also test fired a vintage flame thrower.  They bought the flame thrower for four large.

$650 for a functioning flamethrower. https://www.rkguns.com/exothermic-technologies-pulsefire-lrt-flamethrower-pf-lrt.html

Or if you have a little more cash on hand, say $60K, how about a functional and legal Gatling gun? https://www.rkguns.com/colt-1877-bulldog-gatling-gun-45-70-government-five-barrel-tripod-model-colcgg1877.html

Offline Old n Grumpy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4153
  • Reputation: +347/-10
I am sure the politicians will find some way to work around this. The libs NEVER give up.
Biden sucks and harris swallows.

Basking in the glow of my white Privilege, while I water the Begonias with liberal tears!

I will give up my guns when the liberals give up their illegal aliens

We need a Bull Shit tax to make the Democrats go broke!

Offline BamaMoose

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 532
  • Reputation: +144/-5
The entire decision can be read here: 
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/5381/attachments/original/1622850515/Miller_v_Bonta_Opinion.pdf?1622850515

In it Judge Benitez completely shreds every argument that gun grabbers bring up when discussing "assault weapons".  He also throws in some nice digs at California's AG and the hyperbole utilized by the politicians and the media when discussing the AR-15 platform.

Quote
“One is to be forgiven if one is persuaded by news media and others that the nation is awash with murderous AR-15 assault rifles. The facts, however, do not support this hyperbole, and facts matter.”

Quote
“If this bill’s focus were high speed sports cars, it would first declare them ‘chariots of death’ and then criminalize possession of Ramblers equipped with racing stripes and wire wheels.” (Quoting from Governor Pete Wilson’s 1998 veto of a similar proposed law)

Quote
“As an aside, the “assault weapon” epithet is a bit of a misnomer. These prohibited guns, like all guns, are dangerous weapons. However, these prohibited guns, like all guns, can be used for ill or for good. They could just as well be called “home defense rifles” or “anti-crime guns.”” in which he references this quote from a different court case : “Prior to 1989, the term ‘assault weapon’ did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term, developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of ‘assault rifles’ so as to allow an attack on as many additional firearms as possible on the basis of undefined ‘evil’ appearance.”

Quote
“But little is found in the Attorney General’s court filings reflecting a goal of preventing violence perpetrated against law-abiding citizens in their homes. Instead, the State’s litigation stance is more like the view recently expressed by a police chief in Oakland, California: we do not want victims to arm themselves; we want them to be good witnesses. Of course, a dead victim is a lousy witness.”

Quote
“The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and keep the popular AR-15 rifle and its many variants do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense at home. Under Heller, that is all that is needed. Using the easy to understand Heller test, it is obvious that the California assault weapon ban is unconstitutional. Under the Heller test, judicial review can end right here.”

Quote
“News reports to which the parties made no objection are admitted into evidence. But it begs the question, “Where are the actual police reports or criminal court records?” Why are the only collections of offensive or defensive gun use maintained by biased organizations?
<Snip>
One would expect a police report to accurately record these kinds of raw facts.  While the Plaintiffs may have difficulty obtaining copies of actual police reports, surely the Attorney General has easy access. But the Attorney General has not offered a single California police report.”

Quote
“The Attorney General does not take offense at the fragility of his evidence. Instead, the Attorney General argues that the law excuses it.
<Snip>
He says that his evidence need not be particularly robust or persuasive. On the contrary, he says the “evidence need only ‘fairly support’ the government’s conclusions.”
<Snip>
The Attorney General’s lack of direct evidence is noted.”

Quote
When discussing the State’s claim that high capacity magazines were not required for home defense because, on average, only 2.2 shots were needed in a defensive gun usage:  “The 2.2 shots notion comes from the State’s expert, Lucy Allen. Allen is an expert in economics and statistics.  Unlike Koper, who is an academician undertaking peer reviewed studies for the advancement of understanding, Allen was hired specifically to conduct research for the State’s litigation. Her study is not peer-reviewed. Her study cannot be tested because she has not disclosed her data. Her study cannot be replicated. In fact, the formula used to select 200 news stories for her study is incomprehensible.”

Quote
“From Allen’s list of mass shooting events, it is reported that in California there have been 25 mass shooting events over approximately 40 years.  How well has the California ban on assault weapons worked? Before AWCA, twice in a decade, an assault weapon was used in a mass shooting. On average, since AWCA, twice a decade, an assault weapon was used in a mass shooting.  The assault weapon ban has had no effect. California’s experiment is a failure.”

The decision is long, but worth a read.  Judge Benitez so completely destroyed the gun grabbers' arguments, this decision could set an important precedent in future 2nd Amendment litigation.

Offline ADsOutburst

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1346
  • Reputation: +151/-7
  • Don't let them gaslight you!
The entire decision can be read here: 
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/5381/attachments/original/1622850515/Miller_v_Bonta_Opinion.pdf?1622850515

In it Judge Benitez completely shreds every argument that gun grabbers bring up when discussing "assault weapons".  He also throws in some nice digs at California's AG and the hyperbole utilized by the politicians and the media when discussing the AR-15 platform.

The decision is long, but worth a read.  Judge Benitez so completely destroyed the gun grabbers' arguments, this decision could set an important precedent in future 2nd Amendment litigation.
Wow, he nailed it, even pointing out the astroturfing of terms like "assault weapon" (and, I would add, "assault style).

Offline DUmpsterDiver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1408
  • Reputation: +78/-32
> Marthe48 (6,764 posts)  3. Wrong way judge. (own it!)  fewer assault weapons, not more.

Your A$$, our Salt DUmmy.   Hope it burns you bad scumbag.

Offline diesel driver

  • Creepy Ass Cracker and Smart-Ass White Boy!
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9116
  • Reputation: +598/-55
  • Enhancing My Carbon Footprint!
I am sure the politicians will find some way to work around this. The libs NEVER give up.
True that!
They are like a terminator.
They don't eat, they don't sleep, they sure as hell don't think, and they never quit!
I've been fighting Earth Firsters and Sierra Club idiots for almost 50 years over land closures and usage rights.  Not a working brain in the entire bunch! :hammer:
Makes me happy to see them have their asses handed to them for once!!!
Murphy's 3rd Law:  "You can't make anything 'idiot DUmmie proof'.  The world will just create a better idiot DUmmie."

Liberals are like Slinkys.  Basically useless, but they do bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs...
 
Global warming supporters believe that a few hundred million tons of CO2 has more control over our climate than a million mile in diameter, unshielded thermo-nuclear fusion reactor at the middle of the solar system.

"A dead enemy is a peaceful enemy.  Blessed be the peacemakers". - U.S. Marine Corp

You can't fix stupid, but you can vote it out of office.