California assault weapon ban ruled unconstitutional

[Markemp]

https://www.npr.org/2023/10/19/12073291 ... constituti

SAN DIEGO — A federal judge who previously overturned California's three-decade-old ban on assault weapons did it again on Thursday, ruling that the state's attempts to prohibit sales of semiautomatic guns violates the constitutional right to bear arms.

U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez of San Diego conceded that powerful weapons like AR-15 rifles are commonly used by criminals, but said the guns are importantly also owned by people who obey the law and feel they need firearms to protect themselves.

"The State of California posits that its 'assault weapon' ban, the law challenged here, promotes an important public interest of disarming some mass shooters even though it makes criminals of law-abiding residents who insist on acquiring these firearms for self-defense," Benitez wrote. "Nevertheless, more than that is required to uphold a ban."

The judge's ruling is nearly identical to a 2021 decision in which he called California's ban on assault weapons a "failed experiment." Benitez has repeatedly struck down multiple California firearms laws. Just last month, he ruled the state cannot ban gun owners from having detachable magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

Firearm bans don't seem to be the way to go. They need to rethink this one a bit more.

[Lumpy]

But of course it'll be appealed to the Supreme Court; meanwhile will the injunctions be for keeping or blocking the law?

[Jackpine Savage]

The ninth circus will most definitely trip over themselves to reverse this decision. Then it will get appealed to the Supremes. A couple years at least to resolution.

[daleamn]

There just seems to be no penalties, no responsibility, no consequences for breaking the law.

I guess making laws that are illegal is not illegal.

[jdege]

"The Court of Political Justice has reached a verdict," he announced. "Wilbur Whately, and your attorney, approach and hear the verdict."

The defense lawyer motioned a young man who had been sitting beside him to rise. In the silence that had fallen, I could hear the defendant's boots squeaking as he went forward to hear his fate. The judge picked up a belt and a pair of pistols that had been lying in front of him.

"Wilbur Whately," he began, "this court is proud to announce that you have been unanimously acquitted of the charge of political irresponsibility, and of unjustified and excessive atrocity.

"There was one dissenting vote on acquitting you of the charge of political irresponsibility; one of the associate judges felt that the late unmitigated scoundrel, Austin Maverick, ought to have been skinned alive, an inch at a time. You are, however, acquitted of that charge, too.

"You all know," he continued, addressing the entire assemblage, "the reason for which this young hero cut down that monster of political iniquity, S. Austin Maverick. On the very morning of his justly-merited death, Austin Maverick, using the powers of his political influence, rammed through the Finance and Revenue Committee a bill entitled 'An Act for the Taxing of Personal Incomes, and for the Levying of a Withholding Tax.' Fellow citizens, words fail me to express my horror of this diabolic proposition, this proposed instrument of tyrannical extortion, borrowed from the Dark Ages of the Twentieth Century! Why, if this young nobleman had not taken his blade in hand, I'd have killed the sonofabitch, myself!"

He leaned forward, extending the belt and holsters to the defendant.

"I therefore restore to you your weapons, taken from you when, in compliance with the law, you were formally arrested. Buckle them on, and, assuming your weapons again, go forth from this court a free man, Wilbur Whately. And take with you that machete with which you vindicated the liberties and rights of all New Texans. Bear it reverently to your home, hang it among your lares and penates, cherish it, and dying, mention it within your will, bequeathing it as a rich legacy unto your issue! Court adjourned; next session 0900 tomorrow. For Chrissake, let's get out of here before the barbecue's over!"

[...]

Apparently, on New Texas, killing a politician wasn't regarded as mallum in se, and was mallum prohibitorum only to the extent that what happened to the politician was in excess of what he deserved.

- H. Beam Piper, Lone Star Planet

[Holland&Holland]

https://www.npr.org/2023/10/19/1207329132/a-federal-judge-rules-again-that-californias-assault-weapons-ban-is-unconstituti

SAN DIEGO — A federal judge who previously overturned California's three-decade-old ban on assault weapons did it again on Thursday, ruling that the state's attempts to prohibit sales of semiautomatic guns violates the constitutional right to bear arms.

U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez of San Diego conceded that powerful weapons like AR-15 rifles are commonly used by criminals, but said the guns are importantly also owned by people who obey the law and feel they need firearms to protect themselves.

"The State of California posits that its 'assault weapon' ban, the law challenged here, promotes an important public interest of disarming some mass shooters even though it makes criminals of law-abiding residents who insist on acquiring these firearms for self-defense," Benitez wrote. "Nevertheless, more than that is required to uphold a ban."

The judge's ruling is nearly identical to a 2021 decision in which he called California's ban on assault weapons a "failed experiment." Benitez has repeatedly struck down multiple California firearms laws. Just last month, he ruled the state cannot ban gun owners from having detachable magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

Firearm bans don't seem to be the way to go. They need to rethink this one a bit more.

What would your strategy be to disarm and subjugate the populace?

[Markemp]

There just seems to be no penalties, no responsibility, no consequences for breaking the law.

I guess making laws that are illegal is not illegal.

There are elections. Those are the consequences.

[jdege]

Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.

[Holland&Holland]

There just seems to be no penalties, no responsibility, no consequences for breaking the law.

I guess making laws that are illegal is not illegal.

There are elections. Those are the consequences.

Absolutely no evidence of any malfeasance whatsoever with those.