California Assault Weapon Ban Declared Unconstitutional

[RobDownSouth]

Good catch! This is excellent news for sporting rifle enthusiasts in California. The state’s evolving definition of an “assault weapon” is absurd and so convoluted that lawmakers and law enforcement officers don’t even understand it. Thanks for posting.

It's also great news for White Guys With A Grudge.....one significant impedance to their cherished dream of doing their own school massacre..has now been removed.

The Extreme Court "legislated from the bench" last year that "stuff from frontier days of teh old west" was now a "legal" basis to overturn a 33 year ban. The good thing is that with the Supremes no longer bound by outdated notion of "judicial precedence", new justices nominated by Biden and/or Harris can "legislate" gun control from the bench within the next decade as older "justices" like Thomas and Alito die off.

 

[TrailerHitch]

It's also great news for White Guys With A Grudge.....one significant impedance to their cherished dream of doing their own school massacre..has now been removed.

The Extreme Court "legislated from the bench" last year that "stuff from frontier days of teh old west" was now a "legal" basis to overturn a 33 year ban. The good thing is that with the Supremes no longer bound by outdated notion of "judicial precedence", new justices nominated by Biden and/or Harris can "legislate" gun control from the bench within the next decade as older "justices" like Thomas and Alito die off.

It sounds to me like YOU are the only guy here with a grudge. I am glad you are not a gun owner you always sound like you are on the verge of snapping and going off the deep end.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

It's also great news for White Guys With A Grudge.....one significant impedance to their cherished dream of doing their own school massacre..has now been removed.

The Extreme Court "legislated from the bench" last year that "stuff from frontier days of teh old west" was now a "legal" basis to overturn a 33 year ban. The good thing is that with the Supremes no longer bound by outdated notion of "judicial precedence", new justices nominated by Biden and/or Harris can "legislate" gun control from the bench within the next decade as older "justices" like Thomas and Alito die off.

I suggest getting a good book to read as you wait for the Heller and McDonald decisions to be overturned.

 

[RoryN]

The ammosexuals seem particularly aroused in here today...

 

[CuriousRick]

 

[Rightguide]

Fine. I'm too lazy to argue with someone who knows a lot of legalese but is too entrenched in his own bubble to admit to well-known facts.

Edit: I'll let this article argue my case for me. At least Alito was fairly honest about his intended activism.

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/03/

I don't see anything controversial in the comments made by the Justices in their confirmation hearings that support your assertion that
"they considered Roe v Wade to be settled law and abortion a Constitutional right." Like Dred Scott, it was settled law until it wasn't, but settled law is a far cry from being correct, constitutional, or a "right" present in the Constitution. All one has to do is to read the Constitution and see that it isn't there. Nor is there an analog in the US history of federal jurisprudence recognizing abortion as a right established in the Constitution until Roe v Wade. It was simply "discovered" in a penumbra of the 14th Amendment which had previously been invisible to all of the intellects going all the way back to the authors of the Constitution. WE see this in the dessenting opinons:

I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant women and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the woman, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.

— Doe, 410 U.S. at 221–22 (White, J., dissenting)."

To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion. While many States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today.

— Roe, 410 U.S. at 174–76 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting)"

The issue now is where it was always intended to be, in the state legislatures under the authority of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

 

[RoryN]

View attachment 2282212

^^^
Histrionic nonsense from an obvious nutjob.

 

[LLCox]

Judge rules California assault weapons ban is unconstitutional, violates Second Amendment​

By
Victor Nava
Published Oct. 20, 2023, 12:11 a.m. ET

California’s 33-year-old law banning assault weapons is unconstitutional, violating the right to bear arms, a federal judge declared Thursday.

US District Judge Roger Benitez pointed to the Second Amendment’s right to “keep and bear arms” and the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, which established that gun restriction measures must be “consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation” in ruling against California’s assault weapons ban.

Eggcellent

 

[SmokingFap]

I don't see anything controversial in the comments made by the Justices in their confirmation hearings that support your assertion that
"they considered Roe v Wade to be settled law and abortion a Constitutional right." Like Dred Scott, it was settled law until it wasn't, but settled law is a far cry from being correct, constitutional, or a "right" present in the Constitution. All one has to do is to read the Constitution and see that it isn't there. Nor is there an analog in the US history of federal jurisprudence recognizing abortion as a right established in the Constitution until Roe v Wade. It was simply "discovered" in a penumbra of the 14th Amendment which had previously been invisible to all of the intellects going all the way back to the authors of the Constitution. WE see this in the dessenting opinons:

I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant women and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the woman, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.

— Doe, 410 U.S. at 221–22 (White, J., dissenting)."

To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion. While many States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today.

— Roe, 410 U.S. at 174–76 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting)"

The issue now is where it was always intended to be, in the state legislatures under the authority of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

That's all well and good, and mind-numbingly boring. But OF COURSE you don't have a problem with Supreme Court nominees who disguise their ideological agendas during their confirmation processes. As long as you support their ideology. If Biden gets to nominate another Justice, who testifies to Congress that they believe the Second Amendment gives individual citizens the absolute, unassailable right to bear any firearm that they choose in any situation under any circumstances, just to get confirmed, and then while on the high court, they vote to uphold a state's gun control law, stating that none of our constitutional rights are absolute and beyond restriction, and that they've always thought the Second Amendment was wrongly worded and unduly ratified in the first place, I imagine you'd have your panties so twisted up, your testicles would pop.

 

[Rightguide]

That's all well and good, and mind-numbingly boring.

If it bores you go back to your room and fap and forget commenting on issues you're ignorant of. I don't give a shit.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

I said it’s fortunate that Trump is not a judge and it’s fortunate that the judge who ruled in this case and SCOTUS understand the Constitution. Read more carefully next time.

Below is what you posted, where is Trump in this?

Fortunately the federal judge who ruled on this case and SCOTUS does.

I'm reading carefully and I can't find the name Trump....

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Below is what you posted, where is Trump in this?

I'm reading carefully and I can't find the name Trump....

Lol. You didn’t read the preceding exchange. Keep scrolling and try harder next time before you jump into a conversation that you haven’t been following.

 

[dkovic77]

What's your point about the 14th? I support the Constitution in full.

Seems Georgia could have some resolution to disqualify your boy, now he has folks rolling on him.

Shall see how full is full when that happens.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Lol. You didn’t read the preceding exchange. Keep scrolling and try harder next time before you jump into a conversation that you haven’t been following.

I quoted Bray, and your answer to Bray. That's it.

It's clear that MAGATs don't respect the constitution.

Fortunately the federal judge who ruled on this case and SCOTUS does.

Again Bray states MAGAT's don't respect the constitution. He didn't say Trump and the MAGATs, You agreed. If you wanted to add in a caveat about your previous comment on Trump, you didn't. You simply referred to the SC and the Judge. Nowhere did you absolve the MAGAT's who include more than just Trump...FFS

Talk about being dense Boomer. It's no wonder you chase rabbits down holes......

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

I quoted Bray, and your answer to Bray. That's it.




Again Bray states MAGAT's don't respect the constitution. He didn't say Trump and the MAGATs, You agreed. If you wanted to add in a caveat about your previous comment on Trump, you didn't. You simply referred to the SC and the Judge. Nowhere did you absolve the MAGAT's who include more than just Trump...FFS

Talk about being dense Boomer. It's no wonder you chase rabbits down holes......

I said the judge in the case and SCOTUS respect the constitution. Glad you agree.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

I said the judge in the case and SCOTUS respect the constitution. Glad you agree.

I never claimed the Judge didn't. What I was pointing out is your agreement with Bray on the deplorables not respecting the constitution. Thanks once again for standing on the side of decency and calling out those MAGATs.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

I never claimed the Judge didn't. What I was pointing out is your agreement with Bray on the deplorables not respecting the constitution. Thanks once again for standing on the side of decency and calling out those MAGATs.

Glad you agree that the judge and SCOTUS respect the constitution.

 

[Rightguide]

It doesn't affect me at all, actually. But you can keep ascribing as you need.

Federal judge’s ruling against California gun ban could impact Illinois' similar gun ban law​

Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker has justified the state’s gun and magazine ban he enacted earlier this year by pointing to several other states with similar bans.

By The Center Square Staff
October 22, 2023 12:56am
Updated: October 22, 2023 12:56am

Second Amendment Foundation founder Alan Gottlieb is a plaintiff in California and in Illinois, where a case is pending in the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

“We already won at a lower court level in Illinois on this issue already,” Gottlieb said.

In late April, Southern District of Illinois federal Judge Stephen McGlynn issued a preliminary injunction against Illinois’ gun and magazine ban on Second Amendment grounds. That injunction was stayed by the appeals court with a formal ruling still pending.

“So, is it going to affect the appeal, but again, if it’s illegal and unconstitutional in California, it’s also illegal and unconstitutional in Illinois as well,” Gottlieb told The Center Square. “This strengthens our Illinois challenge.”

The whole article here: https://justthenews.com/nation/stat...inst-california-gun-ban-could-impact-illinois

 

[ll74]

Federal judge’s ruling against California gun ban could impact Illinois' similar gun ban law​

Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker has justified the state’s gun and magazine ban he enacted earlier this year by pointing to several other states with similar bans.

By The Center Square Staff
October 22, 2023 12:56am
Updated: October 22, 2023 12:56am

Second Amendment Foundation founder Alan Gottlieb is a plaintiff in California and in Illinois, where a case is pending in the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

“We already won at a lower court level in Illinois on this issue already,” Gottlieb said.

In late April, Southern District of Illinois federal Judge Stephen McGlynn issued a preliminary injunction against Illinois’ gun and magazine ban on Second Amendment grounds. That injunction was stayed by the appeals court with a formal ruling still pending.

“So, is it going to affect the appeal, but again, if it’s illegal and unconstitutional in California, it’s also illegal and unconstitutional in Illinois as well,” Gottlieb told The Center Square. “This strengthens our Illinois challenge.”

The whole article here: https://justthenews.com/nation/stat...inst-california-gun-ban-could-impact-illinois

Still doesn't affect me.

Keep trying.

 

[Rightguide]

Still doesn't affect me.

Keep trying.

It will when and if the SCOTUS grants review.

 

[ll74]

It will when and if the SCOTUS grants review.

It actually won't.

The only thing it will do is increase my risk of dying from a gun. And I will lobby my government to change that, regardless of these rulings. You continue to put guns in the hands of lunatics and that makes you happy
....so be it.

 

[dkovic77]

I don't see anything controversial in the comments made by the Justices in their confirmation hearings that support your assertion that
"they considered Roe v Wade to be settled law and abortion a Constitutional right." Like Dred Scott, it was settled law until it wasn't, but settled law is a far cry from being correct, constitutional, or a "right" present in the Constitution. All one has to do is to read the Constitution and see that it isn't there. Nor is there an analog in the US history of federal jurisprudence recognizing abortion as a right established in the Constitution until Roe v Wade. It was simply "discovered" in a penumbra of the 14th Amendment which had previously been invisible to all of the intellects going all the way back to the authors of the Constitution. WE see this in the dessenting opinons:

I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant women and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the woman, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.

— Doe, 410 U.S. at 221–22 (White, J., dissenting)."

To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion. While many States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today.

— Roe, 410 U.S. at 174–76 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting)"

The issue now is where it was always intended to be, in the state legislatures under the authority of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

Wow, bringing up Dred Scott…sounds like you long for those “good old days”

 

[Rightguide]

It actually won't.

The only thing it will do is increase my risk of dying from a gun. And I will lobby my government to change that, regardless of these rulings. You continue to put guns in the hands of lunatics and that makes you happy
....so be it.

Stop the hysterical bedwetting. Recall the clarifying words of Judge Benitez:

"California’s “assault weapon” ban takes away from its residents the choice of using an AR-15 type rifle for self-defense. Is it because modern rifles are used so frequently for crime? No. The United States Department of Justice reports that in the year 2021, in the entire country 447 people were killed with rifles (of all types). From this one can say that, based on a national population of 320 million people in the United States, rifles of any kind (including AR-15s) were used in homicides only 0.0000014% of the time. Put differently, if 447 rifles were used to commit 447 homicides and every rifle-related homicide involved an AR-15, it would mean that of the approximately 24,400,000 AR15s in the national stock, less than .00001832% were used in homicides. It begs the question: what were the other AR-15 type rifles used for? The only logical answer is that 24,399,553 (or 99.999985%) of AR-15s were used for lawful purposes."

"In California, while modern semiautomatics are not rare, they are rarely the problem. For example, in 2022, only three “assault weapons” were used in violent California crimes, according to the Attorney General’s annual report, “Firearms Used in the Commission of Crimes.”20 For the preceding year, the report announced that only two assault weapons were used in violent crimes, while the 2020 report identified zero “assault weapons” used."

"Other government homicide statistics do not track “assault rifles,” but they do show that killing by knife attack is far more common than homicide by any kind of rifle. In California, with a population close to 39 million people, murder by knife occurs seven times more often than murder by rifle. Of course, this is a type of means-end scrutiny that Bruen has made irrelevant for judging the constitutionality of a firearm ban because the People of the United States have already made the decision long ago to protect a citizen’s choice to possess and use any common firearm for self-defense."

So, read and absorb the above to broaden your knowledge on this issue so you can escape the narrow confines of ignorance your indoctrinators have placed you in. No need to thank me. I am a benevolent and generous person who wants nothing more than to pay it forward.

 

[ll74]

Stop the hysterical bedwetting. Recall the clarifying words of Judge Benitez:

"California’s “assault weapon” ban takes away from its residents the choice of using an AR-15 type rifle for self-defense. Is it because modern rifles are used so frequently for crime? No. The United States Department of Justice reports that in the year 2021, in the entire country 447 people were killed with rifles (of all types). From this one can say that, based on a national population of 320 million people in the United States, rifles of any kind (including AR-15s) were used in homicides only 0.0000014% of the time. Put differently, if 447 rifles were used to commit 447 homicides and every rifle-related homicide involved an AR-15, it would mean that of the approximately 24,400,000 AR15s in the national stock, less than .00001832% were used in homicides. It begs the question: what were the other AR-15 type rifles used for? The only logical answer is that 24,399,553 (or 99.999985%) of AR-15s were used for lawful purposes."

"In California, while modern semiautomatics are not rare, they are rarely the problem. For example, in 2022, only three “assault weapons” were used in violent California crimes, according to the Attorney General’s annual report, “Firearms Used in the Commission of Crimes.”20 For the preceding year, the report announced that only two assault weapons were used in violent crimes, while the 2020 report identified zero “assault weapons” used."

"Other government homicide statistics do not track “assault rifles,” but they do show that killing by knife attack is far more common than homicide by any kind of rifle. In California, with a population close to 39 million people, murder by knife occurs seven times more often than murder by rifle. Of course, this is a type of means-end scrutiny that Bruen has made irrelevant for judging the constitutionality of a firearm ban because the People of the United States have already made the decision long ago to protect a citizen’s choice to possess and use any common firearm for self-defense."

So, read and absorb the above to broaden your knowledge on this issue so you can escape the narrow confines of ignorance your indoctrinators have placed you in. No need to thank me. I am a benevolent and generous person who wants nothing more than to pay it forward.

It's literal fact. As the number of guns I circulation increases, so does the chance that one of those guns is going to impact my life.

I'm not "bedwetting" over it....I'm acknowledging that the risk increases. You're the one who seems to ignore that and even celebrate that as if you're winning some game against me.

I'm fully supportive of your right to lobby for your policies.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

It will when and if the SCOTUS grants review.

It’s the same argument slave owners made.