California ban on assault weapons ruled unconstitutional by federal judge


Thank God for Federal Judges like this one here in California.
These type of weapons should be classified not as “assault weapons” but as " Crime deterrent weapons."


Bad news: this is one judge’s ruling. Had another judge gotten the same case, it would have gone the other way. It’s almost certain to go to the 9th Circuit, and you can guess how they’ll rule.

Good news: the judge’s ruling is aligned to the “common use” test in the Heller decision from SCOTUS in 2008. That means if it gets up to SCOTUS, gun control advocates will have to argue that the justices need to overturn precedent.

“Today’s decision is a direct threat to public safety and the lives of innocent Californians, period,” [added Newsom]
“[T]he fact that this judge compared the AR-15 – a weapon of war that’s used on the battlefield – to a Swiss Army Knife completely undermines the credibility of this decision and is a slap in the face to the families who’ve lost loved ones to this weapon.”

With apologies to Californians, but you got what you voted for. You have a governor who things he can craft public policy that ignores the Bill of Rights. This is a dangerous argument. Imagine if he applied this same argument to the 1st or 4th Amendments. “The restrictions against unlawful search and seizure are a direct threat to public safety!” As a bonus, you have a moron who literally said we send Soldiers to war with AR-15s. Good job, California voters.


Appeals Court Blocks Ruling Overturning California ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban (

Hey, look at that! I’m practically Nostradamus!
For my next prediction, Winter will be cooler than Summer.

1 Like

Old Racist Gun Laws Enter Modern-Day Legal Battles - WSJ

Here’s a recent take on California’s ban on semi-auto weapons, as well as a few other suits going on. (How does California have time to deal with so many lawsuits?)

In the ammunition background-check case, the state listed more than 100 laws from the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. More than three-quarters of them explicitly targeted slaves, free Blacks, Native Americans and Catholics.

I’m not sure if this is a typo, but the 17th century is the 1600s. The U.S. was not a nation in the 17th century. Georgia wasn’t even a colony until 1732 (18th century).

“I was kind of in shock when they first sent us the spreadsheets,” said Konstadinos Moros, a lawyer with Michel and Associates PC, which represents the California Rifle and Pistol Association, a plaintiff in several lawsuits against the state. “We found these racist laws they were citing that were clearly not relevant to the case.”

Lawyers for California disagree, saying their survey of statutes buttresses their assertion that the state’s background-check law is “rooted in the historical tradition—dating back to the founding—of disarming groups of people perceived to be dangerous or unvirtuous.”

Later in the article:

Judge Berger, noting that she herself is Black, wrote: “Common sense tells us that the public understanding of the Second Amendment at the time of its enactment, which allowed for disarmament of Blacks and Native Americans based on their perceived threat, would have accepted disarmament of people convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence.”

First, let me catch my breath, because the left is using blatantly racist laws to argue for modern gun control.

Second, how can any unbiased judge allow these laws to be used as proof that we can disarm “undesirable” people? At the time these laws were passed, there was no 13th Amendment. Blacks and Native Nations were not considered citizens who could be protected by the 2nd Amendment. Heck, they were at times not even considered people. Native Americans were a big reason why the founders wanted a well-organized militia. But let’s just ignore these inconvenient historical truths so we can press ahead with gun control, I guess?