Aldon Smith (left) (courtesy juanelway.com)

“The preamble to the assault weapons law states that each assault weapon ‘has such a high rate of fire and capacity for firepower that its function as a legitimate sports or recreational firearm is substantially outweighed by the danger that it can be used to kill and injure human beings.’ California’s prohibition of these powerful weapons is not about hunting or target practice. It is about interrupting the long history of death, carnage and grief assault weapons have inflicted on California communities.” CA District Attorney Jeff Rosen, quoted in 49ers’ Smith charged with felony possession of assault rifles [via ktvu.com]

Recommended For You

32 Responses to Quote of the Day: Touchback Edition

  1. Excluding gang banger areas of LA and Oakland how many “assault weapons” have been used in California communities compared to non firearms? I bet my life savings more people die from stabbings than from assault rifles in California in an average year.

  2. Gang bangers at the party? Check
    Party attenders charged a cover fee? Check
    Shooting in the the air to disperse said attendee’s? Check
    Random stabbing? Check
    Nothing good happening after 2AM? Check, check, and check.

  3. Rate of fire? I wonder what they would think about Jerry Miculek. He’s probably faster with a single action revolver and could do six reloads in the time it would take me to unload a 30-round pmag. Plus he would actually hit was he was aiming at.

    • I took this to be the groundwork for outlawing all semiautos. Get it into law with banning those icky EBRs, and when it does nothing to quell crime, use the established law as the basis for banning more. They’re all as fast as you can pull the trigger.

  4. That’s the preamble?! What a bunch of disgusting, lying shit bags. God help us if any AWB is upheld by the SCOTUS. The same preamble will then be used to ban pump actions next. They’re really trying to see what they can get away with legally.

    • Didn’t SCOTUS not contest the NFA during Miller and refuse to judge on it numerous times?

      Have to love too the constant emphasis on sporting/hunting nonsense. The 2nd amendment says nothing about landing a prized buck or getting all 30 in the 10 ring. Seems like politicians and many civilians would love a world like Metal Gear Solid 4. Every single aspect of life controlled, and till someone hacks the system, gun control out the wazoo.

    • I had the same thought. Why has the NRA or Second Amendment Foundation not sued California silly over this?

      • Courts take too long. We need the right person in the White House who would then declare California to be blatently violating the civil rights of the citizens. Send in the National Guard, put them under federal oversight and rid them of these unconstitutional laws. States don’t have the right to trample the people’s rights. Use the example given in the 60’s when the South was dragged kicking and screaming into the world of nondiscrimination.

        • The quoted text is from the California Penal Code, section 30505(a). It’s been the law in California for a very long time (1989?).

          Here’s the full text:
          30505. (a) The Legislature hereby finds and declares that the
          proliferation and use of assault weapons poses a threat to the
          health, safety, and security of all citizens of this state. The
          Legislature has restricted the assault weapons specified in Section
          30510 based upon finding that each firearm has such a high rate of
          fire and capacity for firepower that its function as a legitimate
          sports or recreational firearm is substantially outweighed by the
          danger that it can be used to kill and injure human beings. It is the
          intent of the Legislature in enacting this chapter to place
          restrictions on the use of assault weapons and to establish a
          registration and permit procedure for their lawful sale and
          possession. It is not, however, the intent of the Legislature by this
          chapter to place restrictions on the use of those weapons which are
          primarily designed and intended for hunting, target practice, or
          other legitimate sports or recreational activities.

  5. “California’s prohibition of these powerful weapons is not about hunting or target practice. It is about interrupting the long history of death, carnage and grief assault weapons have inflicted on California communities.” — CA District Attorney Jeff Rosen

    What “long history of death, carnage, and grief” is Mr. Rosen talking about? Have criminals used firearms to harm citizens? Of course. And virtually all of the firearms that those criminals used were NOT what Mr. Rosen incorrectly calls “assault weapons”. They were run-of-the-mill handguns, and shotguns and a few rifles.

    Apparently facts are not important to our criminal justice system.

  6. Not sure what the heck he is talking about. I just reread the new bill that’s on the governor’s desk (SB-374 Firearms: assault weapons) and there is no such “preamble”)

    At any rate: “High rate of fire”? From a semi-auto? Really?

  7. By the same logic, could a professional athlete’s speed, strength, stamina, and overall physical capacity, if too grand, render him incapable of playing sports and, by definition, good for nothing but killing?

  8. I’d like to see actual stats that show “assault rifles” are worse than other weapons, including knives and blunt objects, or even fists. More people are assaulted with bare hands than they will admit and the weight in prison help the perps commit these crimes.
    It’s also interesting that the guns themselves are held accountable without a thought to the individuals holding them.

  9. You go, Jeff! Disarm your people. Package them up in nice convenient kill boxes, then wait for the inevitable.

  10. “The preamble to the assault weapons law states that each assault weapon ‘has such a high rate of fire and capacity for firepower that its function as a legitimate sports or recreational firearm is substantially outweighed by the danger that it can be used to kill and injure human beings'”. — CA District Attorney Jeff Rosen

    So the California government claims that they can ban semi-automatic firearms because a criminal can use them to kill and injure many people in a short period of time? I assure you that a criminal can kill and injure a lot more people much faster with a pickup truck than any semi-automatic or even full automatic firearm. A pickup truck traveling at 60 mph (that’s 88 feet per second for you physics buffs) and plowing into a crowd at a festival or exiting a stadium could easily kill and/or injure 100 people in 1 second. Why hasn’t California banned pickup trucks?

    Again, the NRA or Second Amendment Foundation have to call this law to task in the courts.

  11. “…carnage and grief assault weapons have inflicted on California communities.”

    Once again an inanimate object is targeted, and by implication ALL law abiding gun owners, rather than the more difficult to address true proximate cause of the “carnage and grief”; violent offenders and those afflicted with mental disorders.

    This guy is right on message with the the false rhetoric used by the the anti’s. Big surprise.

  12. In the 40’s and 50’s and even the early 60’s California was seemingly the promised Land-it has devolved into a sewer thanks to liberals.Simple as that.

  13. Unless they are counting that “carnage and grief” in the form of hands wrung and panties twisted, I’m not sure the numbers are very high at all.

  14. What’s a ” high rate of fire” weapon according to California?

    You can shoot a single action revolver or lever action rifle as fast as any semi auto, with enough practice.

    Deliberately ambiguous wording that can be selectively enforced no doubt.

  15. “Assault weapons” are powerful guns? And have a “high rate of fire?” And guns are only for “legitimate sports and recreational” use? This guy has no idea what he’s talking about or is being purposely disingenuous.

    • Neither. It’s all relative — and he will decide what’s legitimate for you. It’s for your own good, you know.

    • They are not his words–these are the words and wisdom of the California Legislature that he is merely parroting. We have no idea what facts (if any) the Legislature relied upon in making this finding, but the finding’s purpose is to deflect litigation attacks by demonstrating that the law was enacted in the public interest. As many here know, most courts will defer to such findings in applying “intermediate scrutiny” to a constitutional challenge to an enactment, and have in several circuits applied such findings as satisfying the government’s burden of proof.

  16. F*CK the Blackhawks! I DANCED when the St. Louis Blues whipped they asses last night… and I also hate the Blues.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *