Ca “Assault Weapons” Ban Unconstitutional, SC Says!

This is just amazing. The decades long ban on the most popular rifle in America is coming to an end. The court has stayed its decision to let Gavin and the boys, appeal. No matter though. Reading the decision makes it clear that California is finally being held accountable for its blatant disregard for the law. It also makes it clear that it’s simply adding to the fairly recen precedents set in prior cases. So this can’t be called a departure from historical precedent or anything else. Finally the good guys pick up a win in the state of commie pukes.

The decision absolutely destroys California’s stupid law. It reads like a passive aggressive attack and insult against the intelligence of the state. Here’s some greatest hits;

Plaintiffs do not have to shoulder the burden of proving that they are entitled to
enjoy Second Amendment rights. The command of the Amendment is that the right to
keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed.”

In this case, there is sufficient evidence to prove that AR-15 type rifles are commonly owned by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes like self-defense and hunting. At the same time, there is very little evidence regarding the commonality of AK-47 type rifles, or semiautomatic shotguns, or “assault pistols” whatever they are.40 Likewise, there is little evidence that semiautomatic AK-47 type rifles, or semiautomatic shotguns, or “assault
pistols,” have been used often unlawfully in California.

In 1989, California’s Legislature predicted an assault weapons ban would eliminate
or reduce mass shootings. It has not turned out that way. As discussed later, even the
State’s evidence demonstrates that mass shootings with assault weapons continue to
occur at the same average rate as before the ban. If Congress is correct, the national
assault weapon ban also did not work.

The defense of home and family by using a gun is not a hypothetical event. While
there are not hard numbers, it surely happens a lot. Approximately 1,000,000 burglaries
of a home while occupied take place each year, according to Department of Justice
statistics. See n.100 infra.

Without question, there is clear evidence that AR-15 rifles are and have been used
for self-defense. For example, in one case an AR-15 was used in Florida by a pregnant
wife and mother to defend her family from two armed, hooded, and masked home
intruders. Pls. Exh. 1-1. As soon as the armed intruders entered the back door of her
home, they pistol-whipped her husband — fracturing his eye socket and sinus cavity.
Then they grabbed the 11-year-old daughter. Before they could do any more harm, the
pregnant wife retrieved the family AR-15 from a bedroom and fired, killing one of the
attackers while the other fled. It does not require much imagination to guess what would
have happened next if the wife and mother did not have the firearm, or if she had emptied
the AR-15’s magazine before the attackers had fled. The quiet click would be sickening
and probably with tragic results. The State contends that one does not “need” more than
ten rounds. That is easy to say. Perhaps one should imagine the terror that would have
gripped this wife and mother, from the sound of a “click,” out of ammunition, helplessly
watching her husband being murdered, her daughter being raped or murdered, and the
enraged men coming for her.

In another case, an AR-15 was used by a young man in Oklahoma to defend
himself from three masked and armed home invaders wearing all black. Pls. Exh. 1-7.
The intruders had selected the home because the family had money and expensive
belongings and the criminals had previously burglarized an apartment on the property.

It goes on with several more real life examples. It’s a public flogging of the Ca state legislature and music to the ears of people like myself.

The evidence shows that one reason for the popularity of the modern rifle is that it
makes a good weapon for self-defense at home. The AR-15, in particular, is an easy
firearm to shoot accurately and is generally easier to fire accurately than a handgun.
The AR-15 rifle is light in weight, and has good ergonomics, and is suitable for people of
all statures and varying levels of strength.46

A drawback to the featureless AR-15 rifle is that the lack of a pistol grip makes it
less safe when it comes to clearing malfunctions.58 In self-defense and in battle,
malfunctions can be fatal. Also, AWCA provides no exception for those that may have
physical or medical reasons for seeking certain characteristics on a home-defense firearm.
Those of small stature or less strength may need an adjustable stock, pistol grip, or
vertical foregrip to maintain proper control of their firearm.

In the end, the Court finds that the prohibited features do not change an AR-15
rifle from a benign weapon into an “incredibly effective killing machine.” Another
commonly espoused myth is that the caliber of these centerfire semiautomatic weapons
are more lethal. In fact, the evidence proves otherwise. The usual ammunition for an
AR-15, the .223/5.56 round, is designed to cause wounding, much more than death.

Just as a heckler’s veto wrongly
punishes persons who speak their ideas, California’s ban punishes persons who choose
modern rifles for home defense. In other words, if modern rifles are misused in crime
(even disproportionately), government must deal with those wrongful acts directly; it may
not deal with the problem by suppressing the rights of law-abiding citizens to have
modern rifles for lawful uses.

To summarize, the average rate of mass shootings with assault weapons in
California has not changed in the thirty years since the assault weapon ban was enacted.
Moreover, for all mass shooting events, assault weapons are used only either 8.25%
(Gius), 10.3% (Koper), or 22% (Allen), of the time.

Furthermore, perspective is important. Contrary to public misinformation, mass
shooting events are rare events. In contrast, as stated previously, there were 3.7 million
burglaries per year in the years 2003 to 2007, 266,560 people suffered a violent
victimization, 23,310 persons, or 9% of those victims, suffered serious injury, and
approximately 7,700, or 3% of those victims, were raped. During the same years, there
was less than one mass shooting with an assault weapon per year

The concept of the citizens’ militia, as protected by the Second Amendment, is an
informal assembly of able-bodied, ordinary citizens acting in concert for the security of
our nation. Heller, 554 U.S., at 600 (“citizens’ militia” is a safeguard against tyranny).
“[T]he Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the
common defense.” Heller, 554 U.S., at 595.

Plaintiffs challenge California Penal Code §§ 30515(a)(1) through (8) (defining an
“assault weapon” by prohibited features), 30800 (deeming certain “assault weapons” a
public nuisance), 30915 (regulating “assault weapons” obtained by bequest or
inheritance), 30925 (restricting importation of “assault weapons” by new residents),
30945 (restricting use of registered “assault weapons”), and 30950 (prohibiting
possession of “assault weapons” by minors). It is declared that these statutes
unconstitutionally infringe the Second Amendment rights of California citizens. These
statutes and the penalty provisions §§ 30600, 30605 and 30800 as applied to “assault
weapons” defined in Code §§ 30515(a)(1) through (8) are hereby enjoined.

Click to access ruling-in-miller-et-al-v-bonta-et-al.pdf