Federal Judge Uphold’s CA ‘Assault Weapons Ban – TTAG Weekly Gun Law Roundup

california AR-15 assault rifle

courtesy FN America

This is TTAG’s weekly roundup of legal and legislative news affecting guns, the gun business and gun owners’ rights. 

California District Court Upholds “Assault Weapon” Ban

washington I-1639 age limit gun control

Not a California-compliant AR-15 rifle (AP Photo/Elaine Thompson)

We can’t know for sure what was going on behind the scenes at the Supreme Court in 2008 when Heller was decided. In addition to striking down DC’s categorical ban on handguns, Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, penned a 64-page penumbra full of examples, counterarguments, and loads upon loads of dicta (writing that is not actually a holding of law, but more editorial).

One particular piece of dicta has caused much more trouble than the late Justice Scalia likely imagined: his reference to “M-16 rifles, and the like.”

When Scalia wrote about “M-16 rifles,” he was making it clear that the Heller ruling was not an indictment of the National Firearms Act. Right or wrong, that’s manifestly what was intended by the language.

In the intervening decade since Heller, however, that piece of dicta has time and again empowered anti-gun judges to uphold categorical bans on any firearm the state argues is “like an M16.”

That’s what this week’s ruling in California was based on. Rupp v. Becerra is a challenge to the California Assault Weapons Control Act on Second Amendment grounds. California’s Attorney General moved for summary judgment, which was granted this week. Judge Josephine Stranton reasoned that the semi-automatic rifles banned in California “may be banned because they are, like the M-16, ‘weapons that are most useful in military service.'”

This is not only an intentional and egregious mis-statement of the law, but it follows some profoundly daft logic that’s used on both sides of the gun control aisle – that a firearm’s use in the military has anything to do with its use for civilians.

We hear the pro-gun side defend self-loading rifles by saying “Oh! Oh wait, no! They’re not full-auto like the guns the military uses, so they’re OK!” Then the anti-gun side says these weapons are “virtually indistinguishable” from their military counterparts, and thus should be banned.

Both sides focus on military use, and are thus both dumb.

For one, the military doesn’t pick guns because they are best-suited for criminal enterprise. They pick guns that are cheap, reliable, and easy to use. The same kind of considerations average people make.

Second, full-auto capability has virtually no impact on a firearm’s lethality. In fact, it reduces efficacy in direct engagements, being most useful for area denial. Hence why most western armed forces keep their guns in semi the vast majority of the time.

Further, gunshot wounds account for a distinct minority of combat fatalities, and have since the Great War, so firearms are not a key driver in the often senseless loss of human life to war.

In short: stop pretending that whether or not a soldier carries your gun, or one that looks just like it, has anything to do with why a civilian needs one. Not only is it in direct contravention with the history of the American civilian militia, but that kind of reasoning is what spurred sloppy dicta in Heller, and what empowered the federal court in California to uphold a manifestly unconstitutional law.

Florida Judge Strikes Down Fine on Local Gun Control

Courtesy leoncountyfl.gov

Federal gun control may be the primary point of discussion for us, but there’s a long history of state and local civil rights violations as well.

Florida has a supremacy clause for gun law. Local governments aren’t allowed to make or enforce laws more restrictive than those of the state. Of course, as we learned with Philly‘s municipal gun control faux pas, just saying “no” isn’t always enough when it comes to ambitious local assemblies. So in 2011 the state imposed a $5,000 fine on Florida mayors and city council members who defied the law “after abuse and intentional ignorance by local municipalities.”

After Parkland, though, a handful of Florida municipal governments sued the state, arguing that the “unprecedented” law went too far. This week, Leon County circuit judge Dodson struck down the penalties. “Because local governments must have what amount to small legislatures, and because courts cannot interfere in legislative processes, neither this court, nor any other court in Florida, can enforce the civil penalty provisions against local legislators.”

Brace for a Wave, Washington 

Robert Brown, of Orient, Wash., holds a liberty state flag, Friday, Feb. 15, 2019, at the Capitol in Olympia, Wash., during a rally held by people advocating splitting Washington state into two separate states and questioning the legality of Washington’s I-1639 gun-control measure. (AP Photo/Ted S. Warren)

On July 28th, a series of gun controls will take hold in Washington state. The bills include a series of reforms to red flag laws, an immediate six month suspension of gun rights for anyone who is admitted for a mental health evaluation, regardless of outcome, and requiring the seizure of all arms and ammunition whenever officers are called to the scene of an alleged domestic violence incident.

On the other hand, HB1934 allows military members who are stationed out-of-state to renew their concealed permits by mail. Yippee.

New Mexico Civil Rights Groups Challenge Red Flag & Background Checks

red flag evro gvro confiscation colorado

Bigstock

The New Mexico Patriots Advocacy Coalition launched a lawsuit this week challenging the constitutionality of New Mexico’s recently expanded background check regime, and a red flag type law.

The reporting on this hasn’t been terribly fair, as you might expect, with articles focusing on “domestic abusers” and simply referring to the background check system as “background checks.”

CRPA Challenges Cali Ammo Law

California Rifle and Pistol Association NRA

Courtesy California Rifle and Pistol Association

The California Rifle and Pistol Association, and a host of other civil rights groups, are suing for a preliminary injunction to block CA’s ammo background check scheme. The attorney for Kim Rhode, an Olympic shooter, noted that “California has placed the additional, absurd requirement that the very identification it issues is insufficient to undergo the background check, resulting in countless other eligible people being unable to exercise their rights.”

The law also poses constitutional concerns beyond the Second Amendment. CA law prohibits bringing ammunition purchased out-of-state inside, in contravention of the Commerce Clause to our Constitution, which basically prohibits states from enacting protectionist policies to force its residents to do business in-state.

“Ammo control” was the butt of many “slippery slope” jokes in the gun community a few years ago, and now here we are. As I’ve stressed before, if you are serious about your arms and your rights, you don’t have an excuse to be unable to load your own ammunition.

Hello Again, New Zealand

New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern (Julian Smith/Pool Photo via AP)

Once again in the news is our friend the tiny island nation of New Zealand, who, in an attempt to regain the trust they lost after hoodwinking and short-changing their residents in a buyback scandal, announced this week plans to expand registration requirements and clamp down on licensing for all gun owners.

Of course, if NZ’s government had a comprehensive registry of who owned what, they wouldn’t have to mess about trying to goad people into selling their guns. Brilliant!

comments

  1. avatar Mark says:

    I trust the CA travesty will be appealed?

    1. avatar Draven says:

      won’t matter, the ninth circus will support it, esp if it is en banc, and more than likely the USSC will deny cert. they are really avoiding AWB cases, and anything that would specifically tell CA that ‘yes Heller applies to you, too’ and have been since the decision was made.

      1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        “CA law prohibits bringing ammunition purchased out-of-state inside”

        ****
        Incorrect. Non-residents are allowed to bring in as much as they please as long as it’s not for commerce. Kinda dumb.

        And residents *are* allowed to bring in up to 50 rds in certain circumstances. I’m getting tired of saying this, as I’ve read over and over that we cannot. The text of the law is very clear. Even Sam Paredes got it totally wrong and said a CA hunter who goes out of state cannot return with a single round, but the law says he can (up to 50 rds as long as it matches the caliber of the hunter’s rifle, one of the exceptions to the law).

        For example, I brought in 50 rds with me a couple of weeks ago under one of the permissible exemptions.

        This law sucks, but the misinformation flying around the Interwebs is atrocious.

    2. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

      Dream on the courts never met a gun or ammo ban they did not love.

      California has also effectively banned people from carrying guns for defense as well. Older laws that banned open carry in various places are still in force and concealed carry has been banned as well thereby effectively banning all carry for self defense. And of course the power mad courts blessed all of it. So far I have not heard that any of this was overturned and of course it never will be.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        Concealed carry has not been “banned” in California. Peruta held that it was not a “right” guaranteed by the Second Amendment to obtain a CCW, so the CCW law still stands. However, since CCWs are issued at the county sheriff level, whether or not one can obtain one is a function of the politics of your local sheriff or chief of police. If you live in LA, fuggedaboutdit. But up here in the far north, my sheriff is “shall issue” in practice and has issued more than 10,000 permits in a county with fewer than 200,000 residents.

        1. avatar David Willson says:

          Shasta co?

        2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Here in L.A. County, your assessment is correct. Fuggetaboudit. I’ve never met anyone in my entire life with a CCW from here.

      2. avatar B.D. says:

        Wrong. I had a conceal carry license in CA.

        Do you actually believe the shit you write?

        1. avatar SurfGW says:

          How long ago was that? Jerry Brown started messing with funds for many of the pro-CCW Central Valley Counties and Sheriffs are much stingier with CCW permits in the past 4 or 5 years.
          Mostly affects new licensing but some renewals are affected also. BTW, California POST teaches police academies that anyone with an assembled firearm in a vehicle that does not have the ammo locked separately requires a CCW.

        2. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          B.D.
          I know the privileged white homosexual actress Rosie O’Donnell and sometimes stand up comedian, has a concealed carry permit. Also the anti-gun white actor Sean Penn also has a gun carry permit.

          Are you a connected and privileged white person? Is that how you were able to get your gun permit in the state of California?

        3. avatar George from Alaska says:

          I actually have to leave my computer and go to a shooting range to see how much lighter my Liberty Mystic X is since it went back to it’s place of being born and having the new all titanium Infiniti core put in. Will leave the heavier Mystic X original type ( I have two) on my German MP5 and the new lighter one on my Sig MK25 tonight for testing purposes..

          So did the privileged white and/or gay individual ever explain how he got his? He seemed pretty feisty about his card…

      3. avatar Ing says:

        Again, you forgot to tell us to keep saying “yes, please” so that they’ll get tired of winning and let special people like you keep your nice things after they take away my modern pistol and budget AR-15.

        Unless you’re starting to realize that when these people are unopposed, we ALL lose?

  2. avatar Stateisevil says:

    What’s the definition of insanity again?

    1. avatar Vee says:

      Living in California?

      1. avatar LifeSavor says:

        LOL!!!

    2. avatar foghorn leghorn says:

      that’d be my ex wife – also referred to as the anti-christ

      1. avatar frank speak says:

        mine would fall under that definition, as well…but at least she didn’t get my guns…..

        1. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

          I still say you guys are terrible judges of female character. If I ever do anything bad enough to get divorced my will just kill me instead. And she doesn’t care about me buying guns or fishing gear as long as she either gets guns and fishing gear too, or gets something else she wants.

  3. avatar Manse Jolly says:

    “………For one, the military doesn’t pick guns because they are best-suited for criminal enterprise. They pick guns that are cheap, reliable, and easy to use. The same kind of considerations average people make…..”

    True, just as an aside though…

    I cringe every time I hear the description ‘military grade’ describing a gun or ‘weapons of war’.

    The Left uses these terms to scare or frighten the ignorant but the truth is that the guns I choose to own are far superior to anything I was issued in the Army. Every M16A1 and A2 I was ever issued was a POS. The 1911 I carried as a 11C asst’ gunner was a rattle can POS. The M4 I carried in Baghdad slightly better but I still wouldn’t give $300 for it on a good day.

    Judge Josephine Stranton is one of the ignorant but unlike average people, She has the power to enforce her ignorance.

    1. avatar Mad Max says:

      The truth is that most AR platform firearms do not have the quality, accuracy, or range of an M1 Garand. A custom built AR or something in the class of a Daniels Defense rifle excepted.

      AR’s are cheap, lightweight, and go bang most of the time and have a range out to about 300 yards (with a lot of practice).

      Muzzle energy, velocity, accuracy; Meh.

      1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

        ..and the issued ammo for qual sucked too. Maybe on a good day 3-5 moa.

        I get it that things cost money, beans and bullets and all. Just saying that anytime you hear the Left say ‘weapons grade’ they are using it as a scare tactic and out of ignorance cause it sounds good.

        Custer and the bean counters is also a good lesson along those lines. Spencer’s vs Cut down Trapdoors.

      2. avatar frank speak says:

        300?…maybe less…usually can not knock over a steel silhouette beyond 200….

        1. avatar Mike V says:

          How small a silhouette do you use?

    2. avatar neiowa says:

      “On February 4, 2010, President Obama nominated Staton” – obviously

      Chicks as judges laughable – if it’s not PMS or Menopause they are just “normal” crazy shebats.

  4. avatar Darkman says:

    No Sympathy. Rights Secured/Preserved by the blood of Patriots. Should never be allowed to be taken by Injustice. If the Free People of California refuse to follow in the foot steps of all those who Fought.Suffered and Died. To Gain Them the Freedoms they now give up without a fight. I say again No Sympathy. Sic Semper Tyrannis…

    1. avatar Napresto says:

      “Now give up without a fight.”

      You realize you are talking about court cases, right? The courts are, in fact, the battlegrounds for the fight that you claim doesn’t exist. The fight is happening. YOU are the one not fighting.

      1. avatar Darkman says:

        The Courts of Anti 2A states like California,Illinois,New York and others. Are No different than the COURT of King George III. Elite member of a Governing body who’s goal was/is complete control over their subjects. Rights are not given or taken by Rulers. The Rights/Freedoms were secured by the Blood,Sweat, and Tears of Common Men and Women. Who had a desire to be Free from Oppression. Once again in this history of OUR Nation. There are Those in power who wish to do the same thing. Whether it be with Legislation or Court rulings. It is no different than what was attempted in the 1770’s. As was then there are those who support those efforts now. A very divided nation struggled with how to deal with the injustices being forced upon it. There were those who wished to stay subjects of the Court of King George III. Willing to trade the chance at Freedom for the perceived security offered by the Crown. All the while suffering ever rising taxes and injustices. On the other side were those who wished for more. Freedom…Freedom to live by their own choices. After much debate and fear of failure. Great men/women arose among the People. From those Great Leader arose. These People chose to fight for something Greater than themselves. Some were well known then and to history now. Most were nameless faceless citizens who believed Freedom was a cause worthy of their lives. I simple ask. Is Freedom from oppression and injustice worthy of Your lives? Do You choose to allow Your Rights to be Oppressed by a Ruling Class. IN trade for the security You now have. Or do You want more? For Yourself and Your children. What kind of future do You wish for them? Freedoms allowed to be taken now. Will leave the fight to those We have forsaken. Which side do you choose? Then and Now that choice will determine the fate of a Nation and all those who live in it. Which side of history do you want to be remembered for? Keep Your Powder Dry.

        1. avatar glock19fan says:

          Benjamin Franklin, in a reply to the Governor of Pennsylvania, stated, “They who can abolish essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” At the time, it was not necessary to point out that any “safety” purchased by sacrificing liberty would always be temporary – a lesson that too many of today’s Americans never learned. An appalling number of Americans were willing to give up Constitutional Rights in favor of “safety” after 9/11. So how “safe” are we now? Now we have government spying on us.

      2. avatar Someone says:

        We need our RTKBA to be able to change the government in case it goes tyrannical. Now the government is infringing on that right, using crime as a pretext. I know what we need to do – let’s ask the government to help us in our fight against the government.

        1. …in case the government goes tyrannical? Wakey-wakey!

    2. avatar jwm says:

      Citizens of CA rise up in armed rebellion to get their rights back. after a bloody, violent and prolonged mini civil war we get our rights back. How do you think the federal .gov is going to view this? No harm, no foul, carry on patriot?

      And with so many of our fellow potg, such as yourself, agreeing with the CA state .gov that our constitutional rights are dependent on our zip code how much support will we get in the other 49 states?

      But don’t worry, darkman. CA is coming state by state after you. We’ll see how patriotic you are when they knock on your door.

      1. avatar B.D. says:

        Speak for yourself.

        Who cares what the government “thinks” about patriots standing their ground. You have faith in the courts? Might as well surrender now.

      2. avatar Darkman says:

        jwm:
        I will die as a Free man. With as many bodies as possible left laying in the Kill Zone. I will leave this earth with no regrets. Fighting for what I believe in. No better No Worse than any Patriot who chose to die Free.

      3. avatar Arc says:

        The USA is a lost cause, when SHTF, I’m looking at my ancestral homeland of Scandinavia.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          Why wait? Go now.

        2. avatar glock19fan says:

          Norway and Finland may be O.K. but Sweden has me scratching my head. Denmark has a high COL and is being targeted by jihadists bent on turning it into a Sharia state. In fact, Sweden looks too “Muslim tolerant” for comfort.

      4. avatar SurfGW says:

        JWM, that might be your fantasy, but CA gunowners are a minority even in red counties. Even if all of the gunowners Tulare (or some similar county) take up arms, the number is small. The National Guard and Marines would be called like in the LA Riots; rebel’s would be branded as terrorists allowing rules of engagement to declare gunowners as hostile;

        concentrations of gunowners would receive Hellfire strikes from Reapers or HIMARS to minimize collateral damage.

        Your rebellion would be over in a few hours with hundreds or thousands of gunowners dead before martial law would be declared and everyone would have to turn in everything down to Airsoft guns.

        Instead, vote for local pro-gun politicians and at some point the Democratic hold on all significant state level offices will go away when there are no funds to pay for all the freebies.

        1. avatar huntmaster says:

          I wouldn’t be so sure that the guys in the military would be so willing to turn their weapons on their families, friends and neighbors. Especially in this country. And it would be breaking a lot of laws.

        2. avatar frank speak says:

          didn’t Waco/Oklahoma city teach you guys anything?….the feds certainly got the message…and provided me with another 10 yrs of gainful employment!……

        3. avatar Big Bill says:

          Huntmaster: This thought isn’t original with you by any stretch.
          NG units from other states would be brought in. It’s already been planned for. The riots of the 60s caused a lot of thinking about how to quell large uprisings. You wouldn’t be facing your next door neighbor, but rather someone from a state that has no loyalty to California, or anyone in it.
          As an aside, I will point out that those in charge have already considered the feelings expressed here, and have developed countermeasures.
          Good luck with your armed uprising. Martial Law will be declared early on, curfews will be in place, and anyone even looking like they are armed will be shot. Patrols will be many, and self-supporting, and well equipped.

    3. avatar B.D. says:

      I agree with you. People will say things like “see what happens when they knock on your door” but the fact is, many of us have already decided to stand our ground or die drying. They are scared. It’s okay, just troublesome that they question the integrity of people willing to do the dirty work required for freedom. When has freedom ever been won through court battles, instead of violence? As history world wide proves, complacency kills.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        So you just huddle in your houses and spit venom at others while you wait for the team to clear you out? Great plan.

        If you’re waiting for the knock at the door you’ve already lost and you’re going to die and take your family with you.

        If the patriots of 49 states march on CA to support the patriots here there will be an end to this nonsense.

        But all we get is weak sauce, just move crap from the mice in the comment sections.

        Why not question the integrity of a key board commando that is sewing splits and dissensions in the potg?

        1. avatar B.D. says:

          You already did. And we answered. Whether you chose to acknowledge that some people will chose to fight over your own actions, is your problem. Were you at Bunkerville? Were you at Standing Rock? Don’t lecture me about sitting at home old man. I’ve fought the governments wars half my life, now I’ll spend the rest of it fighting the government.

        2. avatar frank speak says:

          probably going to take another tragedy to focus attention on this…..

    4. avatar LifeSavor says:

      Rather harsh, Darkman. Our PoTG friends in CA are oppressed, but are fighting back. They obtain CC permits where they can, they purchase guns and ammo, they are not registering their weapons, as that corrupt state government would like, they are joining and funding their state pro-2A organizations, they are fighting infringements in court, and they are petitioning their legislators. There are, after all, pro-2A districts in CA.

      CA’s liberal government is a fiscal disaster. The large cities are becoming unlivable. The pension state pension fund is hopelessly underfunded. Eventually, the failure of the CA state and big city governments is going to change people’s minds and votes.

      1. avatar B.D. says:

        I agree for the most part. I definitely side with Darkman a little, having lived in CA for a long time and grew up there. Recently I was there for a year to sell off family assets due to a death, but I had no intention of staying and “fighting the good fight” there. I will however, go out of my way as I have done before to organize when/where needed. I chose to live where I am now for that reason. I don’t believe everyone there should just leave, but my sympathy for those staying and allowing this onslaught of our rights is dwindling. It’s not a battle anyone wants to acknowledge or take pride in, because war is hell and all… but I think most people are starting to realize no matter what “legal” ground they stand, it will never be enough. For those, I will fight with. For those who criticize the ones willing to fight and are themselves willing to hand over their rights, I have no sympathy. Just living sand bags to take bullets and IMO, are the real “keyboard warriors”. Fear mongering has already got them. They all bitch about things being their rights, but do nothing aside from checking a ballot box to ensure they stay that way.

        I think if we can all agree on something here, when news like this breaks, it’s that we are all pissed off enough to want to do something. Anything. I support those continuing their legal efforts regardless of how I see the future of those efforts, and for those few who share their commitment to liberty by commenting online, I applaud you for not being silenced. Those who don’t understand it are free to criticize, but those who do, will be the ones to take physical action when all other actions have failed. If that makes me a keyboard commando during my down time. Cool. I’ll own that shit. It’s not like we are advocating SJW liberalness here… we are talking about fighting for the only right that keeps us free, and the only way to utilize that right is to accept that eventually, war is inevitable.

  5. avatar Baldwin says:

    Florida “common sense” court activism: “…and because courts cannot interfere in legislative processes…”. Courts cannot interfere in the legislative process, so the court INTERFERES in the legislative process by striking down legislatively imposed fines on municipalities that ignore said legislation.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      As a general principle, legislators or council members acting in a legislative capacity are immune under principles of sovereign immunity for legislative acts.

      1. avatar Baldwin says:

        “As a general principle, legislators or council members acting in a legislative capacity are…” pretty much unaccountable to those they profess to serve.

      2. avatar Geoff WWJWD - "What would John Wick do?" PR says:

        “As a general principle, legislators or council members acting in a legislative capacity are immune under principles of sovereign immunity for legislative acts.

        OK, so that means a municipality can enact a law stating “No People of Color may use public parks” and suffer no personal repercussions from that? Denying a civil right under law gets a local government a free pass?

        1. avatar B.D. says:

          Wouldn’t it just depend on the law in question? What’s to stop them from manipulating any law they want to be in good cause? All they have to do is convince enough people that said law is “common sense”. Obviously, a racial law in regards to civil liberties would be harder to push, but when it comes to something like gun “control”? Not so far fetched to the ill informed, which is why we are here to begin with. Besides, aren’t rights just made up things to make you feel free? Not so long ago those very people who had no civil rights were not seen as people at all. What’s to stop them from viewing every gun owner that way?

      3. avatar frank speak says:

        probably good news for the mayor of Pittsburgh….their latest ploy is to say carrying a gun isn’t illegal…but firing it is [regardless of circumstances?]…which makes carrying it pointless…the case they’re trying to make seems to be getting thinner and thinner……

  6. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    I guess Florida Judge is likely to replace Florida Man as the reining example of ignorant jackass! I guess you could say I am in major contempt of his court, what a dimwit.

    1. avatar Geoff WWJWD - "What would John Wick do?" PR says:

      That stunt that judge pulled has pissed me off. So we have to appeal it to the Florida SC and see what happens?

      1. avatar Karl says:

        Well, everyone knows that a 5 person city council and mayor are just like a bicameral legislature and a chief executive.

  7. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    Maybe we should all get a Gadsden flag and march on D.C. and then each state have a march on its capital. No dumb stuff just flags and if Antifa shows up that’s their problem.

    1. avatar B.D. says:

      flags aren’t going to cut it anymore my friend. They can’t arrest everyone. The only way these battles will end is with force.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Unfortunately B.D. is correct.

        Government employees (bureaucrats, prosecutors, politicians, judges, etc.) suffer no pain nor loss when people march around the capital holding flags. Therefore, those government employees will not change their behavior when thousands of people march around with flags.

        Basic psychology: people will not do what you want unless they stand to gain or lose significantly. Since demonstrators with flags represent zero gain or loss to government employees, those government employees will not do what you want.

        1. avatar Mad Max says:

          When those marching on the nation’s capital number in the millions and in the hundreds of thousands at state capitols, the government will get nervous and pay attention.

          Against 2A supporters, their (the government’s) best option is surrender. Doing so would have minimal impact on their little racket. Maybe a few layoffs at ATF and/or in the state agencies.

  8. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Judge Josephine Stranton reasoned that the semi-automatic rifles banned in California “may be banned because they are, like the M-16, ‘weapons that are most useful in military service.’”

    And that decision directly violates the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1939 United States v. Miller decision which held that, “… the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear … [any] weapon [which] is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or [whose] use could contribute to the common defense.”

    Semi-automatic rifles which are identical to military versions of the same rifle (except that civilian versions do not allow full automatic fire) are clearly and unequivocally in the category of “ordinary military equipment” and clearly and unequivocally do contribute to the common defense.

    Can we please prosecute Judge Josephine Stranton for treason?

    1. avatar B.D. says:

      The day these people are tried and convicted for treason, is the day I regain a double digit number of percentage for the justice system, or our checks and balances for that matter.

    2. avatar Mad Max says:

      Well, there is the error of law necessary for the appeal.

      I’m not so sure any conventional firearm has much military utility anymore. With drones armed with missles and high tech bombers, bombs and missles, who needs an M4?

      Utilizing an M4 in combat is more like a law enforcement operation than a military operation today.

      1. avatar neiowa says:

        So said Air Corp/RAF in WWII. The Airfarce in Vietnam, the Airfarce (Shock and little Awe) in Iraq. Yawn/go buy a clue

      2. avatar Ragnar says:

        Mad Max, completely false premise. “I’m not so sure any conventional firearm has much military utility anymore. With drones armed with missles and high tech bombers, bombs and missles, who needs an M4?”

        Drones, missiles and bombers do not hold land, they only deny it to an organized and obvious enemy force. It takes firearms, like the M4, in the hands of people on the ground to truly control the area. Conventional firearms are absolutely necessary.

        1. avatar Mad Max says:

          What I meant was combat operations today are more like SWAT operations.

          You don’t have hundreds of thousands of troops doing a D-Day invasion under heavy enemy fire today.

        2. avatar SurfGW says:

          Ragnar, Mad Max is correct that M4s are now just personal weapons. In the past 18 years of the war on terror, the Marines or Soldiers on the ground with M-4s are basically a movement to contact / bait and the personal security detail for the Scout Observer or JTAC / TACO who actually get the kill by calling for precision guided munitions from aircraft / helicopters / UAVs or HIMARs / Artillery. The casualty numbers since WW2 show that more than 7/8 enemy combat deaths come from artillery and aircraft.

    3. avatar frank speak says:

      is it just me…or do these judicial types seem to be making it up as they go along…without any regard for precedent or constitutional intent?…..

  9. avatar Political gristle says:

    So, what’s the grand plan?
    Wait in the shadows watching each state fall
    one by one to leftist authoritarianism hoping you never get the “knock” at the door; what if you do, will you have the courage to say NO! From my cold dead hands
    Or is your comfy life too important to fight for liberty

    1. avatar LifeSavor says:

      Gristle, I think we are up to 16 states that have embraced constitutional carry, with two more considering it. So, I think our 2A movement is strong and getting stronger. The fight continues throughout the country. We are fighting for liberty. That being said, sometimes I get so angry at these activist judges and at legislators who ignore the Constitution and all the blood that has been spilled to protect it, that it begins to drag me to a bad place, a dark place. Not a good position from which to fight, so; winning requires a healthy state of mind.

      Please, do not interpret that those last two sentences were directed at you. They were not; they were ONLY about me.

      1. avatar Political gristle says:

        I agree with your sentiment, I am behind enemy lines here in Washington state, it’s hard to petition hard core radical leftist activist politicians to advance liberty ( like trying to squeeze turnup juice from a stone)
        Any challenge gets slapped down, so what are our options? From where I sit they ain’t pretty or nice or even diplomatic.
        Don’t get me wrong I WANT to exhaust peaceful diplomacy first.
        1. Ballot box > Cartridge box
        2. Ballot box < Cartridge box………….

    2. avatar Mad Max says:

      We are all going to move to Tennessee and hold up there.😊

  10. avatar barnbwt says:

    IF (and it’s a damn big “if”) the SCOTUS actually wants to pen a pro-gun ruling on this sort of stuff, I sure hope they’ve learned from Scalia’s mistakes (or poison pills?) in Heller, and use absolutely incontrovertible arguments. Scalia wrote hundreds of pages of material that all point in the same direction, and yet the ONLY citation of Heller we’ve seen over the past 15 years have been the “dangerous and unusual” “common use” and “machine guns” escape clauses, that aren’t even themselves by supported by argument of any sort (they are written as assertions that exceptions to the RKBA exist, not really logical proof of this). Because gun laws don’t typically get passed in more gun-favorable court districts, the only precedent that gets generated arises from places like the 9th; places where we can be assured the judges will use every trick and tortured interpretation they can uphold their restrictions. Scalia basically told them where to stick the knife in order to completely moot Heller’s prohibition of ban-type laws.

    IF (and it’s a damn big “if”) they want to pen a pro-gun ruling that has any importance or value, they need to write clearly, and most importantly, concisely. It needs to be a frank, adamant, and completely unequivocal, or it will be perverted almost immediately. Even if Scalia felt diluting his iron-clad argument was necessary to get Kennedy or board, it was unforgivable since it led to Heller being not only largely ignored, but becoming an anti-gun precedent at this point. The court also needs to make it plain that attempts to thwart it’s intentions should be met with civil-rights lawsuits, and that said civil-rights cases will be met with criminal consequences for the figures responsible courtesy of SCOTUS itself. Like at the end of segregation, we’ve gotten to the point that local politicians & police need to start being arrested by National Guard or Federal Marshals for defying court rulings. We saw a random clerk be jailed for refusing to sign off on a gay marriage, and yet California wants to ban billions of dollars of lawfully purchased firearms & jail hundreds of thousands via simple state-house majority. This is beyond the pale.

    I don’t know if Trump has the balls (or the inclination ) to go down that road, but that’s the sort of end-game that needs to happen to resolve this positively. CA and soon a bunch of the other usual suspects are attempting to ban semi-autos outright; that’s the final wall, since no manually or non-repeating firearm is a practical means of effective defense against criminals or criminal state authorities. It’s akin to Arkansas passing a law that all black Americans would be enslaved after Brown v Board didn’t go the way they’d hoped in the courts. A brazen crime that constitutes open rebellion, and merits a swift, physical response by the federal government as well as the local population. The final test, to determine if people are willing to ensure gun rights will continue to exist, or not.

    1. avatar Geoff WWJWD - "What would John Wick do?" PR says:

      “The court also needs to make it plain that attempts to thwart it’s intentions should be met with civil-rights lawsuits, and that said civil-rights cases will be met with criminal consequences for the figures responsible courtesy of SCOTUS itself.”

      Based on dissent writings in granting of cert. on 2A cases, it looks like Thomas is on-board with this line of thought, making comments about the 2A “being a second-class right”.

      And considering how he was treated during his Senate confirmation “…this has been a high-tech lynching…” he might like a little payback.

      But I don’t see how it can be structured without the Leftist scum pounding in legal wedges in the tiniest cracks left open, leaving little changed from what we have today.

      Thought experiment – How could they structure a ruling that they can’t pervert?

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        “But I don’t see how it can be structured without the Leftist scum pounding in legal wedges in the tiniest cracks left open, leaving little changed from what we have today.”

        True, but they don’t need to pound much when large enough gaps are left in the rulings. Tighten the larger gaps up then we can deal with the tiniest of cracks. When the ship has a bigger breach, we don’t focus on the trickle leaks. Fix the bigger bleeds first. Make the tyrants work for it.

        Personally, I don’t really think that this can be resolved by voting or the courts at this point in the nation’s decline.

      2. avatar John in Ohio says:

        For the thought experiment:

        Shall not be infringed; if one is not in the legitimate custody of another, they retain the exercise of their unalienable right to keep and bear arms.

        Short, sweet, and to the point.

    2. avatar Mad Max says:

      I think we will be seeing how Justice Thomas writes a pro-2A ruling shortly.

      Hopefully, it will be very short and to the point. Like “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; strict scrutiny applies.”

      And then he goes on to define what the Founders meant by “shall not” and “infringed”….

      1. avatar Geoff WWJWD - "What would John Wick do?" PR says:

        “Hopefully, it will be very short and to the point. Like “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; strict scrutiny applies.””

        And they will ignore that, saying “The constitution isn’t a suicide pact”.

        How do we counter that argument?

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “How do we counter that argument?”

          At one point, the Court declared slavery to be legitimate. The Constitution is indeed not a suicide pact in that the individual does not consent to wholesale die for the State. Who is the servant and who is the master? The Constitution specifies “shall not be infringed” and it is necessary to a free people. Without it, the free nation commits slow suicide. The proper course is not to ignore the Second Amendment or to kill it by a death of a thousand cuts, but to repeal it through legitimate, proscribed means. Just because the Court took upon itself to decide the constitutionality of things doesn’t make the Court above the plain language of the Constitution. The Second Amendment is clear. It is the duty of the Court to uphold its plain language until such time as it is repealed. To do otherwise irrevocably damages any legitimacy of the Court in constitutional matters.

        2. avatar Mad Max says:

          Well, if states ignore it, then it would be good to have a pro-2A Attorney General in office to force compliance.

    3. avatar Fudds McKenzie says:

      Yup, Heller is a millstone about our neck now, worse since much of the gun culture has praised it, publicly and n their hearts. This will take a long time to undo.

      As to whether it was deliberate, my thoughts are in part based on non-gun ideology that I’m not here to push, so take it with a grain of salt if you like. But one way I know he hamstringed the gun rights cause deliberately is his opinion on the Troy Davis case. Rex non potest peccare basically

      1. avatar frank speak says:

        Heller reaffirmed your individual right to self-defense by allowing ownership [and access] to commonly used firearms…[implication; pistols]…beyond that it was left deliberately vague….

  11. avatar Mad says:

    If it gets that far where our rights are taken it will then be our lives n those we love it is better to die for what you believe in besides when this goes hot there aren’t enough cops or military to cover everyone they would have to literally nuke us aka swallows well keep your powder dry

  12. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    I think it’s a bit much to require citizens’ arms to be as generally superior to military issue as at the time of the 2a’s writing.

    The judge should maybe lighten up n let people downgrade to military equivale if they want.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      a weapon suitable for militia use should be roughly equivalent to those in current military issue and.. [ideally].. share the same ammo….this makes a strong case for the AR-15 when viewed from that perspective…..

      1. avatar Jim Bullock says:

        Indeed, the militia are the people, of the people — The “Cajun Navy” is a Militia — operating on their own behalf to secure their intrinsic rights. (“The Cajun Navy is a Militia” is a think piece I’ve been working on for a while now. It’s not gelling, quite, n the voice is inconsistent. BUT the point resides in the title. The Cajun Navy is a Militia … any questions?)

        /Unwinding Definitional Sheenanigans

        I’m feeling like stirring the pot, today…

        A militia is a parallel mechanism to a govt-implemented armed forces, not subordinate, or indeed subordinate to the govt. The militia is the people working on their own behalf. Read what anybody wrote who was talking about this stuff, at the time those terms were used in making law.

        Now that we have chartered government, the militia is the people working on their own behalf when the govt — poor servant — isn’t getting it done.

        To let the armed forces work with us when we have to step in and clean up their mess or omissions, they should make compatibility standards generally available. If their arms are so esoteric only they can use them, within only their standing-military supply chains, what good are they, really? And to whom?

        Maybe we can allow them small arms up to rough parity with the most popular citizens’ rifle designs. Or maybe we should limit them to Brown Bess equivalents, like was the military standard back when the standing army got out of hand — I mean “formed.”

        (“Musket” Morgan says the Constintution means the arms in use at the time, so should the standing army not chartered at the time, really be allowed rifling not in general military use at the time?)

        Members of the armed forces are us, or more like “us+”, and in general my personal heroes. “The Armed Forces” as institutions, their figureheads, exploiters, and hangers-on, well, they’re skalliwag schysters, all the worse for parasiting off something so intrinsically noble.

        Or am I wrong? Go ahead and make the case for something else … change my mind.

        /Motivation
        I just read half a dozen pieces on the F35: catching up on that. I am in a sour mood about the constellation of grifts and grifters around and about the institutional military. A standing army as an “always on” and “professional” extension of the people’s militia, I’m all for that. This other thing … ghaaaa.

        1. avatar SurfGW says:

          The militia is formed and activated at either the County or State level. The County Sheriff or the State Governor activates the militia and is responsible for “regulating” (which meant maintaining discipline and proficiency when the Constitution was drafted). Since the County level has institutionalized County Sheriffs that the State partly pays for, no County wants to take the risk of arming a group of un-vetted individuals.
          Likewise, at State level, the Governor has the National Guard and the County Sheriffs, so the Governor has no need to stand up a “well regulated militia” of common people. Because the Sheriffs and the National Guard meet the need at the County and State level, they essentially are the “militia” and judges will not recognize some rednecks running around with “assault weapons in the woods as a legitimate “militia”.

          BTW, there were many well meaning individuals in the “Cajun Navy” but it was a verified and prosecuted scam.

        2. avatar Jim Bullock says:

          What’s the response to this? Oh, I remember: Authoritative references, please.

          Authoritative as in traceable to primary sources. What some schmucks in robes said after the fact is no more authoritative than, for example, Professor Wilson’s bloviations about the will of the nation. (To segregate various Federal institutions, among other things, setting back race relations a century or so. Charming fellow.) He had some admirers and imitators in other countries who followed his lead in that notion.

          I wouldn’t go to sliming by association like that, but that red neck crack was un called for.

  13. avatar Fudds McKenzie says:

    More trouble than Scalia intended? Yeah right. Constitutional originalism was a lie, his loyalty was to the status quo. He wanted Heller to keep us where we are with gun rights, where we have no scary full autos and it can keep being used as a political carrot-and-stick for all eternity.

    You all ate it up, were so desperate for positive attention or in love with him for being anti-abortion and pro-death-penalty that you took the bait. And don’t tell me you were just taking what you could get, people have sincerely been ignoring, rationalizing and making excuses for “not unlimited” for a decade. The bait has been consumed. It is now in the digestive system of the gun culture. Thanks.

    1. avatar Ragnar says:

      More than likely, those little cracks Scalia left in the decision were forced on him by the “centrist” Anthony Kennedy and possibly John Roberts, to secure a winning vote.

      I highly doubt Scalia intentionally poisoned the decision.

  14. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    Ruling of the U S Supreme Court:

    This court finds that the US Constitution holds: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. We didn’t have to look very hard to find that.

    Because remedial exposition is apparantly needed, this court further elaborates consistent with the above that:

    – “The people” means everybody; it may mean more.

    – “Keep and bear” means have, own, carry and use; it may mean more.

    – “Arms” means all of them; it may mean more.

    – “Infringed” means limited, metered, encumbered, prohibited, burdened, or restricted; it may mean more.

    – “Shall not” means don’t do that.

    To further assist with reading comprehension of a limitation on govt action expressed in the apparently confusing form of citizens’ prerogatives, we paraphrase in terms of, specifically the court’s required actions:

    The courts are required to enjoin and restrain the US government so that everybody may hold, own, carry, and use arms of their choice without encumberence, burden or restriction.

    We have determined that the direct, plain constitutional language quoted above trumps all eminations, extensions, interpretations or penumbras (or other spins, dodges, or cons not named) extracted from other clauses n terms, which we here rule to be off point, subordinate, and inapplicable. The plain language, plainly present, directly addressing the point, prevails.

    Because remedial direction on implementation to the courts, executive, and law is apparently needed, we remind:

    – The Supreme Court is supreme — says so on the label. Courts do as we direct, like it or not.

    – Willful disregard for this court’s ruling is not permittted — penalties range from removal from office to more severe, across all branches.

    – This court is final arbiter interpreting the constitution. To change these findings, change the constitution.

    On the specific matter bringing up these questions of law, the parties are directed to get themselves in line with Heller, as found (not twisted) and don’t make us tell you again. As a hint — more may be required — quoting one sentence from Heller to support a conclusion contradicting the rest of it remains wrong.

    Related, on our own motion we are bringing a separate action on the dismissal of Fedaral judges from office by their superior courts, particularly the Supreme Courts’ prerogatives and reliefs available for addressing insubordinate subordinate courts. We are tired of continually having to overturn the same willful “errors” from the same “misunderstandings” from the same judges and courts who apparently have nothing better to do.

    Found this day, by nobody we know in Bizarro World, because it sure ain’t here.

    1. avatar SurfGW says:

      Please provide legitimate/court recognized sources for your interpretation.
      Most courts view the 2A to read this way:
      “The Federal government does not have the right to regulate State/County/City police”

      While acquiescing that most Founding Fathers were pro-gun, but they failed to codify their views.

      Until SCOTUS clearly and succinctly rules otherwise, that will be the predominant view of most judges on 2A.

      1. avatar Jim Bullock says:

        Do your own research. Start with citations backing your interpretation. Try to find something better than that silly stretching of Heller referred to above in this thread.

        Also, rulings are … rulings. This not being France in (Which eternal regime is this? I lose count.) judges don’t make law, but interpret law made by the legislature. So “rulings” actually aren’t the ground truth anyway.

        Since I’m amused I’m waiving my usual “Introductory Civics” fee just now.

    2. avatar frank speak says:

      once these people have power they’re unlikely to relinquish it…once they have established limits on your 2A rights they’re not about to give those up either…just the reality…

  15. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    Ca.Semi Auto Ban

    Judge Josephine Stranton is so full of Bravo Sierra that the court clerks and attorneys have to wear hip wadders in her court room.

  16. avatar SurfGW says:

    Huntmaster, the military can legally engage terrorists or rebels (see Bonus March); to engage civilians, the military needs permission of the Governor (see LA Riots).
    Most military people are adrenaline junkies itching to use their toys and would jump at the opportunity to schwack some “domestic terrorists” without question. Remember, our national hero MacArthur led the cavalry and tanks against the Bonus Army.

    1. avatar Ragnar says:

      “Most military people are adrenaline junkies itching to use their toys and would jump at the opportunity to schwack some “domestic terrorists” without question.”

      If those “domestic terrorists” are U.S. Citizens, our military is not going to be so fast to “schwack” anyone without question. Our military may be “adrenaline junkies” but your description of “itching to use their toys” is very telling of your mindset. Just curious how many years you served in the military and in which branch?

      1. avatar frank speak says:

        ATF and the FBI seemed to have no trouble acquiring those “toys” at Waco…..

  17. avatar K2 says:

    All gun types were once cutting edge military guns.

  18. avatar NavyPO says:

    The Demoncrats want to ban guns. The criminals will still have their guns. The Demoncrats love criminals!

  19. avatar WI Patriot says:

    “Then the anti-gun side says these weapons are “virtually indistinguishable” from their military counterparts, and thus should be banned.”

    We ALL know what happens when it’s said that “they all look alike”…

  20. avatar StLPro2A says:

    In order to survive the Late Life Crisis (old fart’s version of Mid Life Crisis involving a red Corvette), I’m In the process of buying a Class A diesel pusher tag axle Motorcoach to tour this beautiful country at a leisurely pace. I am a certified gun nut. Love the design, fit, function, fun of any gun I’ve ever held. Have no adult supervision in my life. Clients very appreciative of value delivered. Intend to travel with a boatload arsenal to enjoy high angle, ELR shooting while out west. Would love to enjoy beauty (not shooting) in CA, OR and WA since I will already be near their borders. BUT, crossing their state lines will make me a felon-in-waiting. Any suggestions on how to handle this dilemma? Park coach in RV park in free state; use towed Jeep to tour captive states? Rent large storage facility in free state to store toys while in captive territory? Both hold extreme theft risk….probably well north of $300K. Uh, 50 rounds??? Right , might have 5000 rounds each caliber on board…..50BMG, .300PRC, .416 Barrett, .375Cheytac, dreaded ARs in 8-10 calibers, et el, et el. Anyone else traveling with a revolution sized arsenal of unholy toys???

    1. avatar Pete says:

      Paragraphs are still legal in most states.

      1. avatar StLPro2A says:

        Thank you Ms. Skykorski from 7th grade. Good to hear you are still critiquing our prose. Thought you’d surely be dead by now…..from age or one of your students.
        —-paragraph—-
        Now, is there anyone out there, not living in Mommy’s basement, with some meaningful experience and input?? 🙂 🙂 🙂

  21. avatar GS650G says:

    There are a lot of people in NZ wishing they had constitutional protections right now. Never an iron clad guarantee but it prevents knee jerk reactions from changing their lives in 2 weeks flat. And there is no appeal possible or imagined.
    I’ve been there a few times in the 90s. Considered moving there when their economy improved and they pushed back on the liberal left . Forget it now, wouldn’t even consider it. Now they’ve successfully disarmed them by law they will move in to other areas of life needing their gentle hand of guidance. If they think gun bans was the only policy goal they should think again. They’ve already clamped down on speech.

  22. In 2A cases, Federal District Court rulings are nearly irrelevant. No matter what the outcome there will be an appeal – in these cases to the 9th Circuit. Their rulings are frequently appeal to SCOTUS. It appears that SCOTUS really wants to rule on these cases, as the 5 conservative justices are tired of Heller/McDonald being ignored by lower courts.

    I think it likely that lower courts will continue to ignore SCOTUS rulings when deciding 2A cases. The real question is how will the justices deal with these defiant lower courts? Personally, I think we will see more directed verdicts in which all the justices join – as happened with the New Jersey stun gun case. Eventually, SCOTUS may hand down a sweeping decision as an earlier SCOTUS did with abortion (not that I agree with their decision on abortion).

  23. avatar SurfGW says:

    Jim Bullock, I a not a lawyer or judge nor do I play one, but I do hear about these things from some cop and judge friends and they provide a lot of insight even though it sounds like an appeal to authority.
    My comment about rednecks in the woods was just throwing out an example.
    Not calling you or anyone here a redneck and I like to keep things classy.
    Apologies if it came out wrong.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email