Quote:A federal judge in the Southern District of California ruled late on Friday that California’s controversial “assault weapons” ban is unconstitutional.

“This case is not about extraordinary weapons lying at the outer limits of Second Amendment protection,” Judge Roger T. Benitez wrote. “The banned ‘assault weapons’ are not bazookas, howitzers, or machineguns. Those arms are dangerous and solely useful for military purposes. Instead, the firearms deemed ‘assault weapons’ are fairly ordinary, popular, modern rifles. This is an average case about average guns used in average ways for average purposes.”

“One is to be forgiven if one is persuaded by news media and others that the nation is awash with murderous AR-15 assault rifles. The facts, however, do not support this hyperbole, and facts matter,” Benitez continued. “Federal Bureau of Investigation murder statistics do not track assault rifles, but they do show that killing by knife attack is far more common than murder by any kind of rifle. In California, murder by knife occurs seven times more often than murder by rifle. For example, according to F.B.I. statistics for 2019, California saw 252 people murdered with a knife, while 34 people were killed with some type of rifle – not necessarily an AR-15. A Californian is three times more likely to be murdered by an attacker’s bare hands, fists, or feet, than by his rifle. In 2018, the statistics were even more lopsided as California saw only 24 murders by some type of rifle. The same pattern can be observed across the nation.”

The ruling was the result of a 2019 lawsuit filed by the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) to challenge California’s Assault Weapons Control Act (AWCA), which banned popular semiautomatic firearms.

As noted by FPC, the order included an injunction against “Defendant Attorney General Rob Bonta, and his officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with him, and those duly sworn state peace officers and federal law enforcement officers who gain knowledge of this injunction order or know of the existence of this injunction order,” preventing them “from implementing or enforcing” the following:

California Penal Code §§ 30515(a)(1) through (8) (defining an “assault weapon” by prohibited features);
§ 30800 (deeming those “assault weapons” a public nuisance);
§ 30915 (regulating those “assault weapons” obtained by bequest or inheritance);
§ 30925 (restricting importation of those “assault weapons” by new residents);
§ 30945 (restricting use of those registered “assault weapons”) ;
§30950 (prohibiting possession of those “assault weapons” by minors); and,
the penalty provisions §§ 30600, 30605 and 30800 as applied to “assault weapons” defined in Code §§ 30515(a)(1) through (8).
“In his order today, Judge Benitez held what millions of Americans already know to be true: Bans on so-called ‘assault weapons’ are unconstitutional and cannot stand,” FPC President Brandon Combs said. “This historic victory for individual liberty is just the beginning, and FPC will continue to aggressively challenge these laws throughout the United States. We look forward to continuing this challenge at the Ninth Circuit and, should it be necessary, the Supreme Court.”

Benitez slammed the state of California, which is run by Democrats, for infringing of American’s constitutionally protected rights.

“You might not know it, but this case is about what should be a muscular constitutional right and whether a state can force a gun policy choice that impinges on that right with a 30-year-old failed experiment,” Benitez wrote. “It should be an easy question and answer. Government is not free to impose its own new policy choices on American citizens where Constitutional rights are concerned.”

“California may certainly conceive of a policy that a modern rifle is dangerous in the hands of a criminal, and that therefore it is good public policy to keep modern rifles out of the hands of every citizen,” Benitez continued. “The Second Amendment stands as a shield from government imposition of that policy. There is only one policy enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Guns and ammunition in the hands of criminals, tyrants and terrorists are dangerous; guns in the hands of lawabiding responsible citizens are better. To give full life to the core right of self-defense, every law-abiding responsible individual citizen has a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear firearms commonly owned and kept for lawful purposes.”

Link

Most people I argue with about this think AR stands for assault rifle. That’s the type of intellect and knowledge on the subject you run into.

Kudos to that judge

Fck Gavin Newsom

I'm debating right this minute whether or not to press the complete purchase button on almost everything I need to build a Wilson Combat AR. I only have 3 so far and none are WC's. Screw you Cali. We need more judges like Judge Benitez.

Edit: And we need more AR's in the hands of responsible gun owners.

I’m doing my part :)

Ha ha! EABOD Gav

It must really suck for the hoplophobe anti-2A gun grabbing libtards in America to know that they will never be able to take them away from us.

And their endgame depends on disarming us

(06-05-2021 11:06 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  And their endgame depends on disarming us

It's a downright Commie tactic, lose your weapons...lose your rights.

If the government takes your guns and controls your health care, you are little more than a slave. They can kill you if they want to, and you can't do anything to prevent it. That's about as low as it can get.

(06-05-2021 09:45 AM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

Quote:A federal judge in the Southern District of California ruled late on Friday that California’s controversial “assault weapons” ban is unconstitutional.

“This case is not about extraordinary weapons lying at the outer limits of Second Amendment protection,” Judge Roger T. Benitez wrote. “The banned ‘assault weapons’ are not bazookas, howitzers, or machineguns. Those arms are dangerous and solely useful for military purposes. Instead, the firearms deemed ‘assault weapons’ are fairly ordinary, popular, modern rifles. This is an average case about average guns used in average ways for average purposes.”

“One is to be forgiven if one is persuaded by news media and others that the nation is awash with murderous AR-15 assault rifles. The facts, however, do not support this hyperbole, and facts matter,” Benitez continued. “Federal Bureau of Investigation murder statistics do not track assault rifles, but they do show that killing by knife attack is far more common than murder by any kind of rifle. In California, murder by knife occurs seven times more often than murder by rifle. For example, according to F.B.I. statistics for 2019, California saw 252 people murdered with a knife, while 34 people were killed with some type of rifle – not necessarily an AR-15. A Californian is three times more likely to be murdered by an attacker’s bare hands, fists, or feet, than by his rifle. In 2018, the statistics were even more lopsided as California saw only 24 murders by some type of rifle. The same pattern can be observed across the nation.”

The ruling was the result of a 2019 lawsuit filed by the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) to challenge California’s Assault Weapons Control Act (AWCA), which banned popular semiautomatic firearms.

As noted by FPC, the order included an injunction against “Defendant Attorney General Rob Bonta, and his officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with him, and those duly sworn state peace officers and federal law enforcement officers who gain knowledge of this injunction order or know of the existence of this injunction order,” preventing them “from implementing or enforcing” the following:

California Penal Code §§ 30515(a)(1) through (8) (defining an “assault weapon” by prohibited features);
§ 30800 (deeming those “assault weapons” a public nuisance);
§ 30915 (regulating those “assault weapons” obtained by bequest or inheritance);
§ 30925 (restricting importation of those “assault weapons” by new residents);
§ 30945 (restricting use of those registered “assault weapons”) ;
§30950 (prohibiting possession of those “assault weapons” by minors); and,
the penalty provisions §§ 30600, 30605 and 30800 as applied to “assault weapons” defined in Code §§ 30515(a)(1) through (8).
“In his order today, Judge Benitez held what millions of Americans already know to be true: Bans on so-called ‘assault weapons’ are unconstitutional and cannot stand,” FPC President Brandon Combs said. “This historic victory for individual liberty is just the beginning, and FPC will continue to aggressively challenge these laws throughout the United States. We look forward to continuing this challenge at the Ninth Circuit and, should it be necessary, the Supreme Court.”

Benitez slammed the state of California, which is run by Democrats, for infringing of American’s constitutionally protected rights.

“You might not know it, but this case is about what should be a muscular constitutional right and whether a state can force a gun policy choice that impinges on that right with a 30-year-old failed experiment,” Benitez wrote. “It should be an easy question and answer. Government is not free to impose its own new policy choices on American citizens where Constitutional rights are concerned.”

“California may certainly conceive of a policy that a modern rifle is dangerous in the hands of a criminal, and that therefore it is good public policy to keep modern rifles out of the hands of every citizen,” Benitez continued. “The Second Amendment stands as a shield from government imposition of that policy. There is only one policy enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Guns and ammunition in the hands of criminals, tyrants and terrorists are dangerous; guns in the hands of lawabiding responsible citizens are better. To give full life to the core right of self-defense, every law-abiding responsible individual citizen has a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear firearms commonly owned and kept for lawful purposes.”

Link

Most people I argue with about this think AR stands for assault rifle. That’s the type of intellect and knowledge on the subject you run into.

Hey, gentle Gavin, guess what?

Your Califa actually just got a lot SAFER!

Try not to screw that up too.

(06-05-2021 01:45 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(06-05-2021 09:45 AM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

Quote:A federal judge in the Southern District of California ruled late on Friday that California’s controversial “assault weapons” ban is unconstitutional.

“This case is not about extraordinary weapons lying at the outer limits of Second Amendment protection,” Judge Roger T. Benitez wrote. “The banned ‘assault weapons’ are not bazookas, howitzers, or machineguns. Those arms are dangerous and solely useful for military purposes. Instead, the firearms deemed ‘assault weapons’ are fairly ordinary, popular, modern rifles. This is an average case about average guns used in average ways for average purposes.”

“One is to be forgiven if one is persuaded by news media and others that the nation is awash with murderous AR-15 assault rifles. The facts, however, do not support this hyperbole, and facts matter,” Benitez continued. “Federal Bureau of Investigation murder statistics do not track assault rifles, but they do show that killing by knife attack is far more common than murder by any kind of rifle. In California, murder by knife occurs seven times more often than murder by rifle. For example, according to F.B.I. statistics for 2019, California saw 252 people murdered with a knife, while 34 people were killed with some type of rifle – not necessarily an AR-15. A Californian is three times more likely to be murdered by an attacker’s bare hands, fists, or feet, than by his rifle. In 2018, the statistics were even more lopsided as California saw only 24 murders by some type of rifle. The same pattern can be observed across the nation.”

The ruling was the result of a 2019 lawsuit filed by the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) to challenge California’s Assault Weapons Control Act (AWCA), which banned popular semiautomatic firearms.

As noted by FPC, the order included an injunction against “Defendant Attorney General Rob Bonta, and his officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with him, and those duly sworn state peace officers and federal law enforcement officers who gain knowledge of this injunction order or know of the existence of this injunction order,” preventing them “from implementing or enforcing” the following:

California Penal Code §§ 30515(a)(1) through (8) (defining an “assault weapon” by prohibited features);
§ 30800 (deeming those “assault weapons” a public nuisance);
§ 30915 (regulating those “assault weapons” obtained by bequest or inheritance);
§ 30925 (restricting importation of those “assault weapons” by new residents);
§ 30945 (restricting use of those registered “assault weapons”) ;
§30950 (prohibiting possession of those “assault weapons” by minors); and,
the penalty provisions §§ 30600, 30605 and 30800 as applied to “assault weapons” defined in Code §§ 30515(a)(1) through (8).
“In his order today, Judge Benitez held what millions of Americans already know to be true: Bans on so-called ‘assault weapons’ are unconstitutional and cannot stand,” FPC President Brandon Combs said. “This historic victory for individual liberty is just the beginning, and FPC will continue to aggressively challenge these laws throughout the United States. We look forward to continuing this challenge at the Ninth Circuit and, should it be necessary, the Supreme Court.”

Benitez slammed the state of California, which is run by Democrats, for infringing of American’s constitutionally protected rights.

“You might not know it, but this case is about what should be a muscular constitutional right and whether a state can force a gun policy choice that impinges on that right with a 30-year-old failed experiment,” Benitez wrote. “It should be an easy question and answer. Government is not free to impose its own new policy choices on American citizens where Constitutional rights are concerned.”

“California may certainly conceive of a policy that a modern rifle is dangerous in the hands of a criminal, and that therefore it is good public policy to keep modern rifles out of the hands of every citizen,” Benitez continued. “The Second Amendment stands as a shield from government imposition of that policy. There is only one policy enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Guns and ammunition in the hands of criminals, tyrants and terrorists are dangerous; guns in the hands of lawabiding responsible citizens are better. To give full life to the core right of self-defense, every law-abiding responsible individual citizen has a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear firearms commonly owned and kept for lawful purposes.”

Link

Most people I argue with about this think AR stands for assault rifle. That’s the type of intellect and knowledge on the subject you run into.

Hey, gentle Gavin, guess what?

Your Califa actually just got a lot SAFER!

Try not to screw that up too.

Where's the concern for the victims of other violent crimes whose numbers are 4 times greater than those impacted by rifle shootings, not just AR's, ALL kinds of rifles?

(06-06-2021 04:15 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(06-05-2021 01:45 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(06-05-2021 09:45 AM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

Quote:A federal judge in the Southern District of California ruled late on Friday that California’s controversial “assault weapons” ban is unconstitutional.

“This case is not about extraordinary weapons lying at the outer limits of Second Amendment protection,” Judge Roger T. Benitez wrote. “The banned ‘assault weapons’ are not bazookas, howitzers, or machineguns. Those arms are dangerous and solely useful for military purposes. Instead, the firearms deemed ‘assault weapons’ are fairly ordinary, popular, modern rifles. This is an average case about average guns used in average ways for average purposes.”

“One is to be forgiven if one is persuaded by news media and others that the nation is awash with murderous AR-15 assault rifles. The facts, however, do not support this hyperbole, and facts matter,” Benitez continued. “Federal Bureau of Investigation murder statistics do not track assault rifles, but they do show that killing by knife attack is far more common than murder by any kind of rifle. In California, murder by knife occurs seven times more often than murder by rifle. For example, according to F.B.I. statistics for 2019, California saw 252 people murdered with a knife, while 34 people were killed with some type of rifle – not necessarily an AR-15. A Californian is three times more likely to be murdered by an attacker’s bare hands, fists, or feet, than by his rifle. In 2018, the statistics were even more lopsided as California saw only 24 murders by some type of rifle. The same pattern can be observed across the nation.”

The ruling was the result of a 2019 lawsuit filed by the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) to challenge California’s Assault Weapons Control Act (AWCA), which banned popular semiautomatic firearms.

As noted by FPC, the order included an injunction against “Defendant Attorney General Rob Bonta, and his officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with him, and those duly sworn state peace officers and federal law enforcement officers who gain knowledge of this injunction order or know of the existence of this injunction order,” preventing them “from implementing or enforcing” the following:

California Penal Code §§ 30515(a)(1) through (8) (defining an “assault weapon” by prohibited features);
§ 30800 (deeming those “assault weapons” a public nuisance);
§ 30915 (regulating those “assault weapons” obtained by bequest or inheritance);
§ 30925 (restricting importation of those “assault weapons” by new residents);
§ 30945 (restricting use of those registered “assault weapons”) ;
§30950 (prohibiting possession of those “assault weapons” by minors); and,
the penalty provisions §§ 30600, 30605 and 30800 as applied to “assault weapons” defined in Code §§ 30515(a)(1) through (8).
“In his order today, Judge Benitez held what millions of Americans already know to be true: Bans on so-called ‘assault weapons’ are unconstitutional and cannot stand,” FPC President Brandon Combs said. “This historic victory for individual liberty is just the beginning, and FPC will continue to aggressively challenge these laws throughout the United States. We look forward to continuing this challenge at the Ninth Circuit and, should it be necessary, the Supreme Court.”

Benitez slammed the state of California, which is run by Democrats, for infringing of American’s constitutionally protected rights.

“You might not know it, but this case is about what should be a muscular constitutional right and whether a state can force a gun policy choice that impinges on that right with a 30-year-old failed experiment,” Benitez wrote. “It should be an easy question and answer. Government is not free to impose its own new policy choices on American citizens where Constitutional rights are concerned.”

“California may certainly conceive of a policy that a modern rifle is dangerous in the hands of a criminal, and that therefore it is good public policy to keep modern rifles out of the hands of every citizen,” Benitez continued. “The Second Amendment stands as a shield from government imposition of that policy. There is only one policy enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Guns and ammunition in the hands of criminals, tyrants and terrorists are dangerous; guns in the hands of lawabiding responsible citizens are better. To give full life to the core right of self-defense, every law-abiding responsible individual citizen has a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear firearms commonly owned and kept for lawful purposes.”

Link

Most people I argue with about this think AR stands for assault rifle. That’s the type of intellect and knowledge on the subject you run into.

Hey, gentle Gavin, guess what?

Your Califa actually just got a lot SAFER!

Try not to screw that up too.

Where's the concern for the victims of other violent crimes whose numbers are 4 times greater than those impacted by rifle shootings, not just AR's, ALL kinds of rifles?

While I agree with the ruling you need to find a better justification. I’d be embarrassed with your argument

(06-06-2021 04:52 AM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 04:15 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(06-05-2021 01:45 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(06-05-2021 09:45 AM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

Quote:A federal judge in the Southern District of California ruled late on Friday that California’s controversial “assault weapons” ban is unconstitutional.

“This case is not about extraordinary weapons lying at the outer limits of Second Amendment protection,” Judge Roger T. Benitez wrote. “The banned ‘assault weapons’ are not bazookas, howitzers, or machineguns. Those arms are dangerous and solely useful for military purposes. Instead, the firearms deemed ‘assault weapons’ are fairly ordinary, popular, modern rifles. This is an average case about average guns used in average ways for average purposes.”

“One is to be forgiven if one is persuaded by news media and others that the nation is awash with murderous AR-15 assault rifles. The facts, however, do not support this hyperbole, and facts matter,” Benitez continued. “Federal Bureau of Investigation murder statistics do not track assault rifles, but they do show that killing by knife attack is far more common than murder by any kind of rifle. In California, murder by knife occurs seven times more often than murder by rifle. For example, according to F.B.I. statistics for 2019, California saw 252 people murdered with a knife, while 34 people were killed with some type of rifle – not necessarily an AR-15. A Californian is three times more likely to be murdered by an attacker’s bare hands, fists, or feet, than by his rifle. In 2018, the statistics were even more lopsided as California saw only 24 murders by some type of rifle. The same pattern can be observed across the nation.”

The ruling was the result of a 2019 lawsuit filed by the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) to challenge California’s Assault Weapons Control Act (AWCA), which banned popular semiautomatic firearms.

As noted by FPC, the order included an injunction against “Defendant Attorney General Rob Bonta, and his officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with him, and those duly sworn state peace officers and federal law enforcement officers who gain knowledge of this injunction order or know of the existence of this injunction order,” preventing them “from implementing or enforcing” the following:

California Penal Code §§ 30515(a)(1) through (8) (defining an “assault weapon” by prohibited features);
§ 30800 (deeming those “assault weapons” a public nuisance);
§ 30915 (regulating those “assault weapons” obtained by bequest or inheritance);
§ 30925 (restricting importation of those “assault weapons” by new residents);
§ 30945 (restricting use of those registered “assault weapons”) ;
§30950 (prohibiting possession of those “assault weapons” by minors); and,
the penalty provisions §§ 30600, 30605 and 30800 as applied to “assault weapons” defined in Code §§ 30515(a)(1) through (8).
“In his order today, Judge Benitez held what millions of Americans already know to be true: Bans on so-called ‘assault weapons’ are unconstitutional and cannot stand,” FPC President Brandon Combs said. “This historic victory for individual liberty is just the beginning, and FPC will continue to aggressively challenge these laws throughout the United States. We look forward to continuing this challenge at the Ninth Circuit and, should it be necessary, the Supreme Court.”

Benitez slammed the state of California, which is run by Democrats, for infringing of American’s constitutionally protected rights.

“You might not know it, but this case is about what should be a muscular constitutional right and whether a state can force a gun policy choice that impinges on that right with a 30-year-old failed experiment,” Benitez wrote. “It should be an easy question and answer. Government is not free to impose its own new policy choices on American citizens where Constitutional rights are concerned.”

“California may certainly conceive of a policy that a modern rifle is dangerous in the hands of a criminal, and that therefore it is good public policy to keep modern rifles out of the hands of every citizen,” Benitez continued. “The Second Amendment stands as a shield from government imposition of that policy. There is only one policy enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Guns and ammunition in the hands of criminals, tyrants and terrorists are dangerous; guns in the hands of lawabiding responsible citizens are better. To give full life to the core right of self-defense, every law-abiding responsible individual citizen has a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear firearms commonly owned and kept for lawful purposes.”

Link

Most people I argue with about this think AR stands for assault rifle. That’s the type of intellect and knowledge on the subject you run into.

Hey, gentle Gavin, guess what?

Your Califa actually just got a lot SAFER!

Try not to screw that up too.

Where's the concern for the victims of other violent crimes whose numbers are 4 times greater than those impacted by rifle shootings, not just AR's, ALL kinds of rifles?

While I agree with the ruling you need to find a better justification. I’d be embarrassed with your argument

He's not talking about the ruling. He's talking about the sh*t for brains governors rebuttal to the ruling. You should be embarrassed that you didnt know the difference.

(06-06-2021 08:30 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  He's not talking about the ruling. He's talking about the sh*t for brains governors rebuttal to the ruling. You should be embarrassed that you didnt know the difference.

Well he also has sh*t for brains so it's understandable.

(06-06-2021 08:38 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 08:30 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  He's not talking about the ruling. He's talking about the sh*t for brains governors rebuttal to the ruling. You should be embarrassed that you didnt know the difference.

Well he also has sh*t for brains so it's understandable.

Lol

I don't disagree with those statistics.

I wonder however how those numbers are different for mass murders.

9th Circuit will overturn this ruling anyway

(06-08-2021 11:11 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  9th Circuit will overturn this ruling anyway

Not necessarily , Bartlett and the thing is, even if they did, this judge pretty much made sure this case is going to the supreme court, since no matter what the 9th circuit decides, someone's appealing it...

(06-08-2021 11:42 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 11:11 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  9th Circuit will overturn this ruling anyway

Not necessarily , Bartlett and the thing is, even if they did, this judge pretty much made sure this case is going to the supreme court, since no matter what the 9th circuit decides, someone's appealing it...

And that could be bad for the Dem agenda. SCOTUS might uphold the lower court.

(06-08-2021 11:45 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 11:42 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 11:11 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  9th Circuit will overturn this ruling anyway

Not necessarily , Bartlett and the thing is, even if they did, this judge pretty much made sure this case is going to the supreme court, since no matter what the 9th circuit decides, someone's appealing it...

And that could be bad for the Dem agenda. SCOTUS might uphold the lower court.

There's no guarantee today that the 9th would overturn it. It would depend on the makeup of the judges from the 9th that heard it.

(06-08-2021 11:11 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  9th Circuit will overturn this ruling anyway

Yeah but that's their job. It will move up the ladder and be struck down again.