Californias AWB shot down as unconstitutional

https://saf.org/saf-victory-fed-judge-declares-cal-semi-auto-ban-unconstitutional/

In his 79-page decision, Judge Benitez writes, “Falling back on an old, recycled justification, the State says that its ban should stand because a person can have as many other rifles, shotguns, and pistols as one wants…Heller demolished that argument. The same argument – that a handgun ban might be justified because government- approved alternatives are available – was rejected in Heller and it is rejected here. Heller said quite clearly that it is no constitutional answer for government to say that it is permissible to ban some guns so long as other guns are allowed. This is not the way American Constitutional rights work. It is not permissible for a state to ban some books simply because there are other books to read, or to close synagogues because churches and mosques are open. In their normal configurations, the so-called “assault weapons” banned in California are modern firearms commonly-owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes across the nation. Under Heller, McDonald, Caetano, and Bruen, they may not be banned.”
 
https://saf.org/saf-victory-fed-judge-declares-cal-semi-auto-ban-unconstitutional/

In his 79-page decision, Judge Benitez writes, “Falling back on an old, recycled justification, the State says that its ban should stand because a person can have as many other rifles, shotguns, and pistols as one wants…Heller demolished that argument. The same argument – that a handgun ban might be justified because government- approved alternatives are available – was rejected in Heller and it is rejected here. Heller said quite clearly that it is no constitutional answer for government to say that it is permissible to ban some guns so long as other guns are allowed. This is not the way American Constitutional rights work. It is not permissible for a state to ban some books simply because there are other books to read, or to close synagogues because churches and mosques are open. In their normal configurations, the so-called “assault weapons” banned in California are modern firearms commonly-owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes across the nation. Under Heller, McDonald, Caetano, and Bruen, they may not be banned.”

I didn't realize there was still some common sense remaining in CA.
 
Yes, it probably is unconstitutional the way the 2nd Amendment is written.
I have to agree with the decision.

It's the constitution that sucks.
Or not.
Some people obviously enjoy living in a shooting gallery.
 
One should look at other individual rights and apply them the same way to see how it works out. Like, it's okay to tell newspapers what stories they cannot print because there are other stories that are government approved that they are allowed to print... or how about this one? The government can tell you what religions you cannot follow, because there are some government approved religions available to choose from... (maybe send in some FBI agents to infiltrate those Latin speaking mass churches, hmmm?, they're not on the approved list, jerks...)

Americans wouldn't stand for this kind of abuse of their rights.

I've always told folks, if you want to start banning guns you must start with a constitutional amendment, if you do not think you can get an amendment to pass you need to influence and convince people otherwise everything you do will end up like this.
 
Yes, it probably is unconstitutional the way the 2nd Amendment is written.
I have to agree with the decision.

It's the constitution that sucks.
Or not.
Some people obviously enjoy living in a shooting gallery.


hw many times have you come under fire to equate living in this country to a shooting gallery

my guess zero - and you are a fucking poser
 
One should look at other individual rights and apply them the same way to see how it works out. Like, it's okay to tell newspapers what stories they cannot print because there are other stories that are government approved that they are allowed to print... or how about this one? The government can tell you what religions you cannot follow, because there are some government approved religions available to choose from... (maybe send in some FBI agents to infiltrate those Latin speaking mass churches, hmmm?, they're not on the approved list, jerks...)

Americans wouldn't stand for this kind of abuse of their rights.

I've always told folks, if you want to start banning guns you must start with a constitutional amendment, if you do not think you can get an amendment to pass you need to influence and convince people otherwise everything you do will end up like this.

Well stated, 'Cles.
 
Back
Top