Federal judge declares CA “assault weapon” ban unconstitutional

[BabyBoomer50s]

Good news from the Golden State Friday.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/05/us/california-gun-ban-overturned/index.html

 

[CornusKousa]

It's a shame, CA should be allowed a door to door full disarmament if they want.

 

[ShyBiGuy954]

It's a shame, CA should be allowed a door to door full disarmament if they want.

Yeah, sure, just totally disregard the Constitution!

 

[Rightguide]

Newsom and his Communists will take the permanent ban to the 9th Circuit. They have 30 days to do so. Such a ban on AR-15s would get shamed out of existence in the state I live in now.

 

[Rightguide]

Yeah, sure, just totally disregard the Constitution!

I'm sure he was being facetious.

 

[Cubantripod]

I'm sure he was being facetious.

Some people actually believe the crap

 

[pecksniff]

Let us all keep this in perspective. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is not home defense, and it certainly is not to facilitate insurrection. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to facilitate a militia-based national defense system. The FFs, having been through bad experiences with the redcoats, were fearful of a large standing army as a potential instrument of domestic rule. So they wanted the people -- the men, at any rate -- to have their own muskets at home, ready to turn out in the event of war.

IOW, it's all completely obsolete. The "militia" in the 18th-Century sense -- a non-professional volunteer force, as distinct from a National Guard of part-time professional soldiers -- has played no role in any American conflict since the Spanish-American War. We don't need it. As for the Army as an instrument of domestic rule, it has only been used for that purpose occasionally -- Reconstruction, once or twice during the period of the civil rights movement -- and, I hope we can all agree, never regrettably.

 

[pecksniff]

And, really, what legitimate practical use does any civilian have for an AR-15? That's much more firepower than you need for home defense, and it would be unsporting to use such a weapon to hunt.

Nor is it an important part of the problem. Most gunshot deaths in the U.S. are inflicted with handguns, with pistols.

 

[Rightguide]

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to facilitate a militia-based national defense system.

Heller crapped all over your stupid analysis. Article I Section 7 already gives Congress the authority for "organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia." So, no such amendment was needed to facilitate a militia. That part of the Second Amendment that mentions a "well regulated being necessary to the security of a free state", is merely referring to that part of Article I Section 7 the Amendment amends, then it adds language that wasn't stated in Section 7 of Article I, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

 

[pecksniff]

Heller crapped all over your stupid analysis. Article I Section 7 already gives Congress the authority for "organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia." So, no such amendment was needed to facilitate a militia. That part of the Second Amendment that mentions a "well regulated being necessary to the security of a free state", is merely referring to that part of Article I Section 7 the Amendment amends, then it adds language that wasn't stated in Section 7 of Article I, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Heller is not a good thing to cite as a well-reasoned judicial opinion; you might as well argue from the Dred Scott decision. And in 18th-Century parlance, "well-regulated" meant "well-armed." That was the point of the 2nd Amendment, to make sure the potential militiamen would have their own muskets to bring to the muster.

Also, a well-regulated militia obviously is not necessary to the security of a free state. We've been doing just fine without one. A professional full-time armed force is the way to win wars.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Friday’s ruling of course is being appealed and odds are the 9th circuit will uphold the 10 round magazine limit, but AR 15s are not going away, even in CA. You can buy them today, although not with the standard mag release. Easy enough to work around and most people do. Some other cosmetic regulations apply as well. The “common use” doctrine cited in Heller, combined with our 6-3 majority essentially guarantees the AR15, America’s most popular rifle, will not be banned. Certainly not in our lifetimes.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Heller is not a good thing to cite as a well-reasoned judicial opinion; you might as well argue from the Dred Scott decision. And in 18th-Century parlance, "well-regulated" meant "well-armed." That was the point of the 2nd Amendment, to make sure the potential militiamen would have their own muskets to bring to the muster.

Also, a well-regulated militia obviously is not necessary to the security of a free state. We've been doing just fine without one. A professional full-time armed force is the way to win wars.

Disagree with Scalia’s opinion all you want. The Heller ruling stands and it’s not going to be overturned by our 6-3 majority.

 

[Rightguide]

Heller is not a good thing to cite as a well-reasoned judicial opinion;

^^^
This proves you are too friggin' ignorant to speak on the subject, so you might as well shut the fuck up to keep from authenticating that observation.

 

[Rightguide]

And, really, what legitimate practical use does any civilian have for an AR-15?

To secure his home and country with "credible" force that deters criminals and enemies alike. Oh and because he has got a right to own one, or ten.

 

[CornusKousa]

Yeah, sure, just totally disregard the Constitution!

They don't want it!!

That state just comes up with way to go around and subvert the Constitution.

If they spent 1/10th the energy they do in trying to subvert 2A into their homeless problem they wouldn't have one.

They fucking HATE the Constitution.....

 

[pecksniff]

To secure his home and country with "credible" force that deters criminals and enemies alike. Oh and because he has got a right to own one, or ten.

Who are these "enemies," that you distinguish them from criminals? The police?

 

[phrodeau]

Who are these "enemies," that you distinguish them from criminals? The police?

His neighbors who drop by to raid his refrigerator.

 

[Rightguide]

Who are these "enemies," that you distinguish them from criminals? The police?

Foreign generals and war planners with designs America will find themselves having to confront an unacceptable calculus of cost to benefit ratios accompanying each of those designs involving movement through the country. Even those today in our government and military who might want to put in place totalitarian solutions to further desires for power and control, know what would happen if they drew a line in the dirt and said: "Americans on this day will surrender all firearms to state enforcement officers or they will be seized by the US military using deadly force if necessary." You see, they were the first to make those calculations and reject them as disastrously unworkable. The physical and political cost would be too high. The logistics are beyond the capability of our military as presently constituted.

 

[pecksniff]

Foreign generals and war planners with designs America will find themselves having to confront an unacceptable calculus of cost to benefit ratios accompanying each of those designs involving movement through the country.

There is no plausible scenario in which you will ever have to defend your home from a foreign soldier.

 

[ShyBiGuy954]

There is no plausible scenario in which you will ever have to defend your home from a foreign soldier.

Because every country knows that there are approx 300 million guns and 1 trillion rnds of stored ammo by US citizens.

Even in WWII Emperor Hirohito or whoever one of the Japs higher ups has a quote that they couldn't invade mainland US "because there is a gun behind every blade of grass".

In the US each year there are approx. 6 million hunting licenses issued , that's more than the 5 largest armies of the world combined.

And are you so stupid and naive that you think the Dems wouldn't have you in full socialism / communism by now if we didn't have enough firepower to crush them if they tried?? If you think not you're a fool!!

You've been a member here for 2 days and you have 135 posts, averaging 70 posts per day!! Get a life!!

Or are you on a George Soros payroll, sent to spread propaganda like a good little lib foot soldier?

 

[Rightguide]

There is no plausible scenario in which you will ever have to defend your home from a foreign soldier.

That's what your 5th or 6th great grand parents might have thought when in 1812 the British Army came back and burned down the White House, or those in 1916 Columbus, New Mexico when Pancho Villa crossed the border and invaded their town, killing 19 Americans and leaving it in flames. I'll grant you this, today our biggest threat is from within, but that has nothing to do with might happen in the future, which is unknowable to us today.

 

[pecksniff]

Because every country knows that there are approx 300 million guns and 1 trillion rnds of stored ammo by US citizens.

No, because every country on really bad terms with this one is in the Eastern Hemisphere, except for Cuba, which is no threat.

 

[Rightguide]

No, because every country on really bad terms with this one is in the Eastern Hemisphere, except for Cuba, which is no threat.

So was Germany, and Japan was even further away. We have the ‘Cártel de Sinaloa’ which claims half of Mexico as a Narco State and threatens to destabilize through massive corruption the legitimate government of Mexico. An Incipient threat to the United States that might very well require military force to deal with.

 

[nowisthetime]

That's what your 5th or 6th great grand parents might have thought when in 1812 the British Army came back and burned down the White House, or those in 1916 Columbus, New Mexico when Pancho Villa crossed the border and invaded their town, killing 19 Americans and leaving it in flames. I'll grant you this, today our biggest threat is from within, but that has nothing to do with might happen in the future, which is unknowable to us today.

Our biggest threat is from within, mainly from YOU rightist thugs.

 

[Rightguide]

Our biggest threat is from within, mainly from YOU rightist thugs.

I don't have a criminal record, so no. The threat is from your stunted side steeped in paranoia and stupid superstition.