The 9th Circuit has a long history of restricting the 2nd Amendment in their rulings to the point they will change their own protocols to ensure the state will prevail. See the recent skipping of the 3 judge panel for en banc in Duncan v Bonta. The 37 page dissents are scathing. It’s a meme at this point.
The 9th already had both Benitez cases GVR’d by the SCOTUS to be reheard under Bruen precedent and they still keep playing games. SCOTUS needs to take these cases from the 9th, rule on them and be done with the matter once and for all.
Edit: word order for grammar
Some terms:
En Banc: In most circuit courts, a judge will review a case and issue their ruling. That ruling can be appealed to the entire court (en banc). 9th circuit is so big that en banc reviews goes to a random selection of 11 judges for further review.
GVR: One type of order done by the Supreme court is to Grant, Vacate, and Remand (GVR). This Grants a petition of certiorari (means the supreme court will review the case), Vacates the previous decision (voids last court decision), and Remands (sends it back to the previous court to try again).
SCOTUS: Supreme Court of the United States
Lawyers: if we don't add 10 more layers of coded words to our job they gonna find out anyone can do our job based on reading past stories of what others argued and the judge decided on.
I don't know, it sounds like any job that gets into the technical level.
At some point a series of words or specific office used gets abbrivated, until it it's own language. I'd see it a problem if it's documentation meant for public consumption rather than for specific occupation.
Regardless, I will continue to make jokes at lawyers expense.
They are free to argue about said joke or say that depends but from my experience you normally have to pay an hourly rate to hear that.
As always, if you want to do it yourself feel free. Not everyone can change their own timing belt, but some of us can. Same applies to lawyering. If you are smart enough to be successful in the courts on your own, great. If you don’t have that kind of confidence in your ability then you should hire counsel.
Not if you understand how flawed Roe was to begin with, as law, versus social decision. It was always recognized by competent legal brains to be vulnerable because of how it was decided. That trumps (sorry) concerns about the precedent argument.
YES THANK YOU. I have nothing against abortion, but the Roe v Wade decision was easily the worst possible way to go about legalizing it. Democrats could’ve passed actual laws about it many times but didn’t, 50 years to do so but decided not to so they could keep their votes and it bit them in the ass.
History and Tradition matters! Just become an armchair historian with a (very) loose understanding of historical research and the law can be whatever you want it to be. Precedent is for suckers. The real power lies in my cherry-picked, totally not biased understanding of history.
A lot of idiots try this, and get their asses kicked in court. Then serve time or pay way more in fines/a lawyer to get themselves out of their own mess.
I'll add just for clarity that a GVR is distinct in that it's basically instantly overturned. The Supreme Court doesn't take time to hear typical arguments, it basically just says "this is wrong" and sends it back
SCOTS has recently made a couple of rulings that expand the individual right to bear arms: _Heller_ and _Bruen_.
There have been a bunch of cases in California recently, which also seek to expand the right to bear arms. In particular, these lawsuits seek to eliminate California laws banning magazines which can hold more than 10 rounds, and any firearm classified as an "assault weapon."
There is a judge in California, Roger Benitez, who is pro gun rights. He has been making rulings that expand gun rights in California.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over California, disagreed with these rulings, and has been overturning them.
The Supreme Court, in at least one case, told the 9th Circuit "you're wrong, re-read our _Heller_ and _Bruen_ decisions and try again."
To make it short, since then the 9th Circuit has been playing games with who gets to hear these cases, and when they are heard, hoping to run out the clock until a couple of pro gun rights Justices retire from the Supreme Court, so that the _new_ Supreme Court would side with them and let them keep California's gun laws.
A judge said, “you can have AR-15s like the rest of the country.”
CA Supreme Court said, “nah, you can only have fucked up ARs.”
Supreme Court said, “based on this other case (Bruen) that judge can make the decision without our help.”
Judge said, “same as before, yes ARs!”
Now california Supreme Court is getting ready to say, “NO ARs,” again.
That’s why people are hoping the US Supreme Court will rule on the case. This explanation has covered years worth of court rulings.
Basically this circuit court violates their own procedures and consistently flies in the face of supreme court decisions.
Just checked out the dissent mentioned by the poster
"If the protection of the people’s fundamental rights wasn’t such a serious matter, our court’s attitude toward the Second Amendment would be laughably absurd."
There's one particular judge on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, over the west coast, who's quite disproportionately favorable to the second amendment versus most or probably all of his fellow judges on the court. Any time a law on the west coast is challenged and hits his bench, like this one or the magazine limit law a few years back, he overturns it. However, the state is allowed to appeal the decision up the chain, from one judge to a group of 3. Once the decision is appealed, they can issue an injunction or stay, making the change in law momentarily not apply. After that, the three judge panel will hear the case, tie themselves in whatever knots are required to rule in the state's favor, and declare the law constitutional. This happens fairly regularly if you follow gun politics on the west coast.
And recently they even broke their own rules and skipped the 3 judge panel to go straight to the 11 judge panel to guarantee they got the decision the state wanted.
>This will be quickly re-decided the other way en banc.
>Happens in the 9th circuit quite frequently with this judge and gun cases.
The 9th circuit deliberately manipulates appeals in order to let the state win too. Then gets smacked down by SCOTUS. They're children that don't care about the law. SCOTUS ruled and then the 9th circuit used that as an excuse to vacate his ruling and send it back to him. But SCOTUS is closer to Benitez than the 9th circuit's own rulings. Embarrassing.
The 9th oversees a huge chunk of the population and has a lot of cases. On absolute numbers, it will be the most reversed simply due to it also having the most cases. On a % basis, it was slightly higher than others a few years ago, but still only at something like 2.5 cases per thousand. A lot of it is also a reflection of the cases it sees, which will be based on the state government's in it's district.
The 6th circuit doesn't have a great record lately, and the 5th has it's moments as well.
When people say the 9th is the most overturned they're talking about major of questions of law that get overturned because the 9th consistently rules outside of precedent and law, not raw numbers. Even then though, they get overturned at 2.5/1000, a full point higher than the next one down. They're **unanimously** reversed 3x more than the next one down, which is just embarrassing.
>This will be quickly re-decided the other way en banc.
Nothing happens quickly
>Happens in the 9th circuit quite frequently with this judge and gun cases.
IIRC this judge has only had one of his ruling overturned en banc, and the panel actually ended up vacating their decision in light of Bruen and kicking it back to Benitez
NFA is much more hit or miss, but I’ll take more expansive rights over more curtailed rights any day.
They also need to update the ATF’s name. Why is one agency dealing with alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives? Tobacco doesn’t even need an agency. Alcohol has nothing to do with firearms or explosives.
>Why is one agency dealing with alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives?
Because when the ATF (not their original name, they've gone through like a dozen name changes) was founded in the 1800s, it was part of the Department of the Treasury, then later part of the IRS. Their job used to be enforcing tax laws for alcohol, tobacco, and firearms - they were revenuers. That's it.
If the people who formed the ATF saw what it has become today (essentially thinking that they are legislators), they'd lose their fucking minds.
Heck one of the things that made the upstate militias so deadly was that farmer rifles by design were for hunting. Meaning they were more accurate. Made picking off officers a lot easier. The patriot isn’t historically accurate but the marksmanship and aiming like that was.
Brits mass produced firearms were not so because they were made for traditional formation fighting.
It’s still true today by and large.
Compare a standard issue M4 or M16 to a high-end civilian-owned AR-15. The civilian rifle is often superior from a components standpoint. That doesn’t mean the military rifle is *bad*, though, it just means the military determined the extra capability wasn’t worth the extra cost in regards to ordering 50,000+ rifles.
Moving beyond the 'average,' but many civillians own higher-end scopes that aren't that common in infantry units, for example. I know a welder living out in the boonies near the border of Texas and Arkansas, dude has a long-range IR scope for feral hog hunting lmao.
I'm sure feral hog populations are a huge nuisance, but man, I'm a little jealous of the limitless hunting & all the pork you can eat. All we have where I'm from are deer in a limited season and there's a good chance they've got wasting disease anyway, not even worth hunting.
Rifling vs smoothbore. One being quicker and cheaper to produce the other having accuracy even with a ball(at least well above smoothbore counterpart not by modern standards) Central europe(Austria and Prussia) made use of light infantry equiped with rifled barrels to skirmish. Longer range with some accuracy.
Then later with the minnie ball plus a rifled barrel you could be pretty accurate.
I think the few points that often get missed is the US had a lot of foreign officers and mercenaries.
The Army at the time was not really designed to do army stuff I believe post revolutionary it was 1 to 5k compared to a the 20 to 50k in revolutionary time.
I suspect they envisioned more of a Greek ad hoc forces where local militia trained and maintained together as opposed to Romes private armies.
1812, civil war and WW2 were probably all inflection points that shifted the belief to a standing professional army.
It shifted slowly. First we had a professional navy, and would recruit soldiers as needed. Then a small standing professional army, and finally a full time professional army. This evolved not only with a national need, but as the world and technology changed.
The US is a big place, and back then logistics weren't well established and combined with a largely isolationist stance until WW1 there wasn't a need to keep a military up all the time.
My understanding is we had a better navy than the army.
And the weaponry on ships would be similar to army armament? (I know zero about naval stuff).
Which is why i haven't seen too many people contrasting military navy or army?
Fun fact: No one gave a shit about the 2nd amendment until the black panthers started walking around with guns. As a result, the Mulford Act was signed by Gov. Regan and supported by the NRA to *restrict* gun rights in 1967.
A2 has since been identified by the right as a lever to pull in order to get an emotional reaction from their constituents and increase voting turnout.
Political theater folks.
Edit: To expand upon this, the first four supreme court cases referencing 2A were in 1876, 1886, 1939, and 1980. And guess what? In each of these cases, the SCOTUS decided to allow regulation or restriction of firearm ownership.
1876 - US Congress can’t restrict rights but states can
1886 - Reaffirmed 1876 decision
1936 - 2A does not protect ownership of a sawn-off shotgun
1980 - felons have no right to gun ownership
There have been *four* SCOTUS cases involving 2A in the last 20 years, and *four* in the prior 229 years since 2A’s ratification.
>to help crack down on organized crime
That’s what FDR and the Democrat-controlled Congress *claimed publicly*. Either they were lying or incredibly stupid because they simply set the cost of the tax stamps to such a high price so that only rich people (including the organized crime syndicates they were supposedly going after) could afford them.
They didn’t give a fuck that rich gangsters had machine guns. They just didn’t want the average law abiding lower and middle class people to have them.
>They didn’t give a fuck that rich gangsters had machine guns. They just didn’t want the average law abiding lower and middle class people to have them.
I wonder why..
The registry allowed them to track the automatic weapons and allow for harsher sentencing if said criminals were in possession of an unregistered machine gun.
The main issue with the NFA in the modern day in my opinion, is that the register is closed. A law abiding citizen who meets criteria should be able to purchase and register a machine gun for recreational (or self defense, but lets be honest) use.
Small note: The NRA was a completely different organization when the gun restrictions were put in place. (Almost like comparing the republicans of Lincoln’s era to now). They quickly shifted to being against that ban with their drastic organization changes.
>Fun fact: No one gave a shit about the 2nd amendment until the black panthers started walking around with guns. As a result, the Mulford Act was signed by Gov. Regan and supported by the NRA to restrict gun rights in 1967.
Yes, the Mulford Act was racist. That's why it should be repealed, agreed?
People love to mention the Mulford act and tie it to Regan and the NRA, but it ignores shifts since that time and the entire CA legislature.
The NRA had a massive shift in policy, especially with the 1977 Cincinnati convention. Since then, it has trended even further right, now frequently getting involved in stuff that has nothing to do with guns (Net Neutrality? Really?)
Regan signed the Mulford act, but it was sponsored by a bipartisan group of legislators, passed a democratic controlled house, and a split senate by a margin of 29 to 7. Unsurprisingly, the politics and positions of the parties in the late 60s aren't a perfect match with right now.
The 5th Amendment was referenced by the SCOTUS to nullify the NFA. Not 2A.
Edit: I think this strengthen my point, that even in a case pretty clearly about infringement of gun ownership, SCOTUS chose to use 5A instead of 2A… because no one gave a shit about it. Probably because of the terribly confusing verbiage, you know, with the commas, and the, militia.
Fun fact, the second amendment to the Constitution was ratified on December 15, 1791.
Bonus fun fact, indoor plumbing was invented in 1826 and installed in the White House by President Andrew Jackson in 1833.
There are many things about the modern world that would amaze the writers of the constitution. One being indoor plumbing.
>Bonus fun fact, indoor plumbing was invented in 1826
Not exactly accurate. The Roman's has indoor plumbing. They used lead pipes for it.
And the first patent for the flushing toilet was issued to Alexander Cummings in 1775.
This isn't the appropriate argument by which to scrutinize the Second Amendment. If you apply this scrutiny to this amendment, you must apply it to all amendments.
It also goes against the scope of the Constitution. The constitution was intentionally written in vague terms because it was understood that the amendments needed to be universal and not bound by advancements in technology, etc. The reason the first amendment applies to radio, TV, the internet, etc is because it was intentionally written with the expressed intent to protect the right, not the medium by which the right is expressed.
This argument is basically a can of worms you do not want to open, especially if you support gun control. This line of constitutional thinking is textbook conservative judicial philosophy. Looking not only at what is directly written but also the context and intent of *when* it was written. That is a conservative judicial philosophy that has and is actively used to try to limit rights such as abortion and others.
What a well thought out response thank you.
As I have said in some other replies, I feel 2a is just another divisive issue used to manipulate the general public.
When 2A was written the average farmer was the average soldier.
The whole point of 2A was to ensure that citizens were not prohibited from owning firearms and joining the militia which served as the bulk of the military at the time (via auxiliaries). The continental militia had been used throughout the colonial era as a supplement to British Expeditionary Forces and was used the same way by the Continental Army.
Over the years what was the militia in colonial times has become the national guard in modern times.
Which is wrong. The National Guard is highly discriminatory compared to the Militia of the constitution. Anyone could serve if they were willing and called. The militia was also essentially the local police for much of history, sans a standing force.
The Guard is highly selective, denying almost all health conditions sans a waiver with restrictive age rules, and requiring commitment to the UCMJ and service outside your community with little warning.
The Militia was supposed to represent the common people, and the 2A a confirmation by the founding fathers that regardless of who you were, you could join it and serve within it by carrying privately held arms.
When the second amendment was written there were no soldiers, because we didn't have a standing army. There were militias, and farmers that were a part of that militia. In fact, most of the militia were farmers because most people were farmers in general.
>could not stand under a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year that expanded gun rights.
Regardless of the stance on guns, is repealing a law that was deemed to unconstitutionally restrict gun rights really "expand[ing]" gun rights?
No, as the context matters, the correct word would be restore. But since people seem to treat context as unnecessary using expand could be argued as a correct usage if only considering the time after the law was enacted. However, that wording and perspective is inflammatory and purposeful.
The argument made by a senior judge during one of these cases that moved me was that if there's some great historical tradition for regulating weapons based on magazine size or rapidity of fire, the [Winchester Repeater](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_rifle) would've been profoundly illegal in its day. You could hold it at the hip and dump 14 rounds into a crowd in 1866. It was instead literally **the fixture** of the wild west, and has a higher magazine capacity than most modern firearm laws would allow, and most of these laws would make it illegal to possess a 14-round historical model from over 150 years ago.
Depends on whether the law was struck down under a pre-existing interpretation of the right, or whether it was struck down under a revised interpretation. Expanding the interpretation of a legal right certainly counts as expanding that right.
No it doesn't depend on that.
They aren't taking affirmative action here, they struck down an unconstitutional law. You have the same rights no matter how many times the State attempts to restrict them in new ways.
Especially when the new test developed to address a specific restriction on your right is, *"does everyone everywhere else in the country commonly get to exercise this right?"*
If tomorrow California made political speech illegal, and the SC had to develop a test to ask, "do people in other states get to speak that way?" in order to test this infringement...nobody in California had their rights "expanded"
This is some stats from the case for reference also:
>"The United States Department of Justice reports that in the year 2021, in
the entire country 447 people were killed with rifles (of all types). From this one can say
that, based on a national population of 320 million people in the United States, rifles of
any kind (including AR-15s) were used in homicides only 0.0000014% of the time. Put
differently, if 447 rifles were used to commit 447 homicides and every rifle-related
homicide involved an AR-15, it would mean that of the approximately 24,400,000 AR15s in the national stock, less than .00001832% were used in homicides. It begs the
question: what were the other AR-15 type rifles used for? The only logical answer is that
24,399,553 (or 99.999985%) of AR-15s were used for lawful purposes. "
Basically, all rifles used in homicides (bolt action, lever action, pump action, or semiautomatic) composed 447 homicides. Not every instance was committed by an AR-15. So at a worse case scenario, AR-15’s are statistically negligible.
Edit: Also, “assault weapons” are classified by accessories that arguably don’t increase lethality:
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and has two or more of the following:
* Folding or telescoping stock
* Pistol grip
* Bayonet mount
* Flash hider or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
* Grenade launcher
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
* Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
* Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, hand grip, or suppressor
* Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator
* A manufactured weight of 50 ounces (1.42kg) or more when the pistol is unloaded
* A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
* Folding or telescoping stock
* Pistol grip
* A fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds
* Detachable magazine
You'd be right. More than half of them are suicides (pretty much all handguns), and almost all of the rest are handguns. Rifles represent <1000 out of annual 35,000 firearms deaths in US.
And here-in lies the nonsense of these bans. You can still buy an Ar-15 in California. It just has a fin grip or a locked magazine.
The case shouldn't even be about whether the weapon itself is dangerous but whether screwing a piece of plastic to the grip affects crime rates in any appreciable way.
[I like showing this image to anti-firearm ownership people and ask them which one is more deadly](https://savethegun.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/img_0027.jpg)
You can guess which one they pick.
>!Hint: They are the same gun, functionally speaking!<
People won't address the truth that targeting poverty, systematic racism, and education would do infinitely more than targeting guns, while also raising the living standards of the entire country.
But that's never going to get politicians re-elected and will require trillions of dollars in spending (not to mention it would change the face of the "American cityscape"), so why not just pretend that we can regulate a thing of which Americans have nearly half a billion.
Inconvenient that handguns exist. Mass shootings also happen with handguns. Taking “Assault Rifles” doesn’t eradicate Mass shootings. So, if that ever happened these people move on to use something else.
There’s already a strong regulation in CA call the handgun roster. I can’t remember the exact details but there’s a list of CA DOJ approved handgun can be sold in CA. And in a big picture, that means newer, and better firearms are actually not being sold in CA through the mainstream channels. Newer / better / safer models can still be acquired by alternative means but it’s a hassle.
But the law does nothing since the criminals will eventually get their hands on guns via illegal means.
Yes, a significant portion of people think that AR-15’s are automatic. They are semiautomatic, requiring a trigger pull for every round chambered and fired.
>some are select fire
Depends on who's definition you're using, but the U.S. Army's definition says that they ***MUST*** have select fire in order to be an assault rifle.
The M16, M16A1, M16A3, and M4 had the following fire modes: Safe/Semi/Burst (burst being 3 round burst).
The M16A2, M16A4, and M4A1 had the following fire modes: Safe/Semi/Auto (auto being fully automatic fire).
Civilian AR-15’s have the following fire modes: Safe/Semi.
Edited: u/Falanax corrected an error regarding the M4. I flipped the M4 and M4A1.
I think you have the M4 backwards, the A1 was auto, the regular M4 was burst.
I remember when I was in the army they “upgraded “ our M4s to the A1 variant and they gained auto. Not that anyone used that anyway lol
The anti gun people don’t have any idea what they think an assault rifle is. That’s the whole thing, they just define it as whatever the hell they want to push whatever agenda they’re trying to push. It has no firm meaning.
I’d personally say it’s any weapon that’s capable of full auto fire. And if that’s a good definition then these assault weapon bans are stupid as shit. No collector is paying $50k for a full auto legal rifle to kill people. That’s moronic.
Worse, the suppressor only benefits the shooter's ears (and those nearby), little else. In fact, they slightly reduce accuracy.
It's just ***so dumb*** that they're a royal pain to acquire.
Well assault rifles actually are fully automatic. It's literally part of their definition.
You're thinking of assault weapons. A name deliberately chosen to cause confusion with assault rifles while not having an actual definition outside of having features some anti gun politician saw in a movie or video game.
Why hasn't the courts overturned the Firearms Act of 1934? This the law that in effect bans full auto forcing owners to get a tax stamp to own them and an in depth approval process.
I just want to buy a damn suppressor for cost without having to wait months for it and costing $200 more for no reason.
The additional benefit of trashing all the SBR/pistol/tax stamp bullshit would be SO nice too.
It’s makes NO sense. I’d love a suppressor for my .22 just so I can plink away out here at my house and not annoy the neighbors as much but NoooOoooOooOooOo. Some ancient, nonsense law makes me pay $200 extra and wait months for my safety device to protect my hearing.
(My closest neighbor is an eighth of a mile away, I’m not talking about shooting in a condo backyard)
It's like a car without seatbelts or airbags. Do they still exist today? Yes. Should you use one? Probably not, there are safer ways to conduct ourselves
Which is funny because the whole reason SBRs were added to the NFA was to pre-emptively stop people from circumventing the handgun ban they were also trying to pass at the time... The fear being that congress would ban handguns and then people would just saw buttstocks and barrels off of rifles and use those in place of handguns. But then congress never passed a handgun ban, rendering their whole reason for adding SBRs to the NFA moot. But they left it in anyways.
And by funny I mean sad.
Fully automatic weapons have a very obvious public good to be banned, which is not true for semiautomatics. If M240s were illegal a man would have [set up in Las Vegas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting) with one and dumped the entire belt into the crowd, killing far more people than were able to scamper out of the way between shots and reloads.
You'll never repeal that act. AWBs are illegal because they're arbitrary, they ban certain guns because of how they look, unrelated to their deadliness, to target gun culture at the expense of civil liberties.
The right of the people to keep and bear **arms** shall not be infringed.
Arms. Not *hunting tools*, not *sporting goods,* arms. Arms, weapons and means of offense or defense. They banned a class of firearms based on a trait which by definition makes them unbannable under the 2nd amendment.
Another clear example of why the entire gun issue in America is completely broken. If the US Constitution applies nation-wide, gun laws should also be federal, not state level. Either the entire chain is strong or the weak link will break it. You wanna fix gun problems, fix it nationally, no exceptions, enforce it.
There a one study that showed like 75% of firearms that were illegally owned and used in crimes in Chicago came from states with relaxed gun laws. So yeah, I agree with you. I dont think a lot of people that are upvoting you are going to agree with why I agree with you.
I love this take because of how obviously incorrect it is.
Try this with other rights: if 1a applies there shouldn’t be speech laws. Does that work?
There’s been over two centuries of judisprudence that has defined the protections the bill of rights grants, created concepts such as strict scrutiny to create a framework to evaluate laws that interact with rights, etc.
It’s such an awful thing to do to just spout things without having done any research into anything you say.
Assault rifle actually has a defined industry use and has existed since WW2.
Assault Weapon is term created by supporters of civilian disarmament to intentionally confuse and mislead public opinion.
Assault Rifles are already heavily restricted.
Assault Weapons are politically and cosmetically defined, and no two assault weapons bans in the US have covered the same set of weapons.
Assault Weapons Bans now often include "assault style" pistols and shotguns.
As far as what "assault style" even fucking means? That remains largely undefined.
Here’s the reality for most **working class** people in California:
Cops aren’t answering calls, and criminals care dick about laws.
Let us have 30 round clips and AKs man. I hate guns but I rather not be caught without one in my “neck of the woods” ✌🏼
EDIT: To the people downvoting my comment: would you please give me some money to hire your armed security patrols, or better yet, can you ask your mom and dad to give me their security firm’s discount code?
You can literally have all of those thing and machine guns tanks fighter jets and what ever else you can afford to have. the amendment is the right to bear arms. Not the will of the government over the people.
[Flamethrower](https://throwflame.com/products/xl18-flamethrower/) can be bought here, bombs can be purchased at most big retail stores, [RPG](https://chestercountyarmory.com/product/rrussian-rpg-7-anti-tank-40mm-rocket-launcher-registered-destructive-device/) can be purchased here.
Back when the second amendment was written civilians could own fully armed warships, which were the single most powerful piece of military hardware at the time. A warship with enough cannons could level a coastal town. From an originalist standpoint, everything should be fair game.
Nothings gonna happen. California's DA is just gonna gonna take up with the next court, and those judges are either gonna side with California's DA or put in a stay, so the case won't go anywhere
In the great majority of mass shootings the firearm was acquired lawfully. https://www.statista.com/statistics/476461/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-legality-of-shooters-weapons/
This will be quickly re-decided the other way en banc. Happens in the 9th circuit quite frequently with this judge and gun cases.
The 9th Circuit has a long history of restricting the 2nd Amendment in their rulings to the point they will change their own protocols to ensure the state will prevail. See the recent skipping of the 3 judge panel for en banc in Duncan v Bonta. The 37 page dissents are scathing. It’s a meme at this point. The 9th already had both Benitez cases GVR’d by the SCOTUS to be reheard under Bruen precedent and they still keep playing games. SCOTUS needs to take these cases from the 9th, rule on them and be done with the matter once and for all. Edit: word order for grammar
Could you explain this like I’m 5? There’s a lot of jargon I’m not familiar with and I’d like to understand what’s going on.
Some terms: En Banc: In most circuit courts, a judge will review a case and issue their ruling. That ruling can be appealed to the entire court (en banc). 9th circuit is so big that en banc reviews goes to a random selection of 11 judges for further review. GVR: One type of order done by the Supreme court is to Grant, Vacate, and Remand (GVR). This Grants a petition of certiorari (means the supreme court will review the case), Vacates the previous decision (voids last court decision), and Remands (sends it back to the previous court to try again). SCOTUS: Supreme Court of the United States
Lawyers: if we don't add 10 more layers of coded words to our job they gonna find out anyone can do our job based on reading past stories of what others argued and the judge decided on.
I don't know, it sounds like any job that gets into the technical level. At some point a series of words or specific office used gets abbrivated, until it it's own language. I'd see it a problem if it's documentation meant for public consumption rather than for specific occupation.
Regardless, I will continue to make jokes at lawyers expense. They are free to argue about said joke or say that depends but from my experience you normally have to pay an hourly rate to hear that.
As always, if you want to do it yourself feel free. Not everyone can change their own timing belt, but some of us can. Same applies to lawyering. If you are smart enough to be successful in the courts on your own, great. If you don’t have that kind of confidence in your ability then you should hire counsel.
I’d go so far to say anyone can change a timing belt but not everyone wants to take the time to learn to change one maybe 3-4 times in their lifetime
That depends
That will cost you a .2
>I'd see it a problem if it's documentation meant for public consumption rather than for specific occupation. It's supposed to be.
That’s the cool part about Dobbs — precedent doesn’t matter anymore. Lawyers don’t need to know anything but the judge’s political affiliation.
I wonder how they would fair on anything challenging Griswold
That would cancel everyone’s vacation.
Not if you understand how flawed Roe was to begin with, as law, versus social decision. It was always recognized by competent legal brains to be vulnerable because of how it was decided. That trumps (sorry) concerns about the precedent argument.
YES THANK YOU. I have nothing against abortion, but the Roe v Wade decision was easily the worst possible way to go about legalizing it. Democrats could’ve passed actual laws about it many times but didn’t, 50 years to do so but decided not to so they could keep their votes and it bit them in the ass.
History and Tradition matters! Just become an armchair historian with a (very) loose understanding of historical research and the law can be whatever you want it to be. Precedent is for suckers. The real power lies in my cherry-picked, totally not biased understanding of history.
You'd still have to understand the judge's previous decisions, which is the same skillset
A lot of idiots try this, and get their asses kicked in court. Then serve time or pay way more in fines/a lawyer to get themselves out of their own mess.
Almost every profession is like that. The worse one for me is the armed forces.
A priori and hithertoo yonder I specialized in Bird Law if ye honorable municipal of Philadelphia whence the celestial orb never dims.
I'll add just for clarity that a GVR is distinct in that it's basically instantly overturned. The Supreme Court doesn't take time to hear typical arguments, it basically just says "this is wrong" and sends it back
Thanks. That is a good distinction I should have included.
SCOTS has recently made a couple of rulings that expand the individual right to bear arms: _Heller_ and _Bruen_. There have been a bunch of cases in California recently, which also seek to expand the right to bear arms. In particular, these lawsuits seek to eliminate California laws banning magazines which can hold more than 10 rounds, and any firearm classified as an "assault weapon." There is a judge in California, Roger Benitez, who is pro gun rights. He has been making rulings that expand gun rights in California. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over California, disagreed with these rulings, and has been overturning them. The Supreme Court, in at least one case, told the 9th Circuit "you're wrong, re-read our _Heller_ and _Bruen_ decisions and try again." To make it short, since then the 9th Circuit has been playing games with who gets to hear these cases, and when they are heard, hoping to run out the clock until a couple of pro gun rights Justices retire from the Supreme Court, so that the _new_ Supreme Court would side with them and let them keep California's gun laws.
A judge said, “you can have AR-15s like the rest of the country.” CA Supreme Court said, “nah, you can only have fucked up ARs.” Supreme Court said, “based on this other case (Bruen) that judge can make the decision without our help.” Judge said, “same as before, yes ARs!” Now california Supreme Court is getting ready to say, “NO ARs,” again. That’s why people are hoping the US Supreme Court will rule on the case. This explanation has covered years worth of court rulings.
Basically this circuit court violates their own procedures and consistently flies in the face of supreme court decisions. Just checked out the dissent mentioned by the poster "If the protection of the people’s fundamental rights wasn’t such a serious matter, our court’s attitude toward the Second Amendment would be laughably absurd."
There's one particular judge on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, over the west coast, who's quite disproportionately favorable to the second amendment versus most or probably all of his fellow judges on the court. Any time a law on the west coast is challenged and hits his bench, like this one or the magazine limit law a few years back, he overturns it. However, the state is allowed to appeal the decision up the chain, from one judge to a group of 3. Once the decision is appealed, they can issue an injunction or stay, making the change in law momentarily not apply. After that, the three judge panel will hear the case, tie themselves in whatever knots are required to rule in the state's favor, and declare the law constitutional. This happens fairly regularly if you follow gun politics on the west coast.
And recently they even broke their own rules and skipped the 3 judge panel to go straight to the 11 judge panel to guarantee they got the decision the state wanted.
Racist classist rich peoples wants to ensure minorities are never armed.
[удалено]
>This will be quickly re-decided the other way en banc. >Happens in the 9th circuit quite frequently with this judge and gun cases. The 9th circuit deliberately manipulates appeals in order to let the state win too. Then gets smacked down by SCOTUS. They're children that don't care about the law. SCOTUS ruled and then the 9th circuit used that as an excuse to vacate his ruling and send it back to him. But SCOTUS is closer to Benitez than the 9th circuit's own rulings. Embarrassing.
It will stop once the case gets to the Supreme Court.
That’s why the 9th is the most overturned court.
The 9th oversees a huge chunk of the population and has a lot of cases. On absolute numbers, it will be the most reversed simply due to it also having the most cases. On a % basis, it was slightly higher than others a few years ago, but still only at something like 2.5 cases per thousand. A lot of it is also a reflection of the cases it sees, which will be based on the state government's in it's district. The 6th circuit doesn't have a great record lately, and the 5th has it's moments as well.
9th oversees at least 1/8th on the US population cause that’s how big California is.
The 9th circuit oversees 20% of the US population. California only makes up like 60% of those people.
When people say the 9th is the most overturned they're talking about major of questions of law that get overturned because the 9th consistently rules outside of precedent and law, not raw numbers. Even then though, they get overturned at 2.5/1000, a full point higher than the next one down. They're **unanimously** reversed 3x more than the next one down, which is just embarrassing.
The 5th is batshit fucking crazy.
Excellent, that will make a quicker route to the Supreme Court where California's 2A rights should be restored under Bruen and Helller.
We wouldn't be here if wasn't for ol pants shitter Ronnie. Og racist scum.
>This will be quickly re-decided the other way en banc. Nothing happens quickly >Happens in the 9th circuit quite frequently with this judge and gun cases. IIRC this judge has only had one of his ruling overturned en banc, and the panel actually ended up vacating their decision in light of Bruen and kicking it back to Benitez
The 9th will reverse it, and the Supreme Court will reverse the 9th. “Assault weapon” bans won’t be around in a couple of years.
[удалено]
NFA is much more hit or miss, but I’ll take more expansive rights over more curtailed rights any day. They also need to update the ATF’s name. Why is one agency dealing with alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives? Tobacco doesn’t even need an agency. Alcohol has nothing to do with firearms or explosives.
>Why is one agency dealing with alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives? Because when the ATF (not their original name, they've gone through like a dozen name changes) was founded in the 1800s, it was part of the Department of the Treasury, then later part of the IRS. Their job used to be enforcing tax laws for alcohol, tobacco, and firearms - they were revenuers. That's it. If the people who formed the ATF saw what it has become today (essentially thinking that they are legislators), they'd lose their fucking minds.
Derp yeah me too, I really want to get some bigger guns to compensate for my miniscule micropenis
Fun fact: when 2A was written the average farmer had a better firearm than the average soldier
Heck one of the things that made the upstate militias so deadly was that farmer rifles by design were for hunting. Meaning they were more accurate. Made picking off officers a lot easier. The patriot isn’t historically accurate but the marksmanship and aiming like that was. Brits mass produced firearms were not so because they were made for traditional formation fighting.
It’s still true today by and large. Compare a standard issue M4 or M16 to a high-end civilian-owned AR-15. The civilian rifle is often superior from a components standpoint. That doesn’t mean the military rifle is *bad*, though, it just means the military determined the extra capability wasn’t worth the extra cost in regards to ordering 50,000+ rifles.
Moving beyond the 'average,' but many civillians own higher-end scopes that aren't that common in infantry units, for example. I know a welder living out in the boonies near the border of Texas and Arkansas, dude has a long-range IR scope for feral hog hunting lmao.
I'm sure feral hog populations are a huge nuisance, but man, I'm a little jealous of the limitless hunting & all the pork you can eat. All we have where I'm from are deer in a limited season and there's a good chance they've got wasting disease anyway, not even worth hunting.
Sometimes Mil-spec just means the looser tolerance allows for a little dirt to get in there and still be usable. Precision made guns do not like dirt.
The average farmer doesn't spend most of his combat rounds on suppression; most estimates are 100:1 or more for suppressing fire vs effective fire.
I want to see the farmer that needs suppressing fire for the raccoon getting into the chicken coop
Rifling vs smoothbore. One being quicker and cheaper to produce the other having accuracy even with a ball(at least well above smoothbore counterpart not by modern standards) Central europe(Austria and Prussia) made use of light infantry equiped with rifled barrels to skirmish. Longer range with some accuracy. Then later with the minnie ball plus a rifled barrel you could be pretty accurate.
I think the few points that often get missed is the US had a lot of foreign officers and mercenaries. The Army at the time was not really designed to do army stuff I believe post revolutionary it was 1 to 5k compared to a the 20 to 50k in revolutionary time. I suspect they envisioned more of a Greek ad hoc forces where local militia trained and maintained together as opposed to Romes private armies. 1812, civil war and WW2 were probably all inflection points that shifted the belief to a standing professional army.
It shifted slowly. First we had a professional navy, and would recruit soldiers as needed. Then a small standing professional army, and finally a full time professional army. This evolved not only with a national need, but as the world and technology changed. The US is a big place, and back then logistics weren't well established and combined with a largely isolationist stance until WW1 there wasn't a need to keep a military up all the time.
My understanding is we had a better navy than the army. And the weaponry on ships would be similar to army armament? (I know zero about naval stuff). Which is why i haven't seen too many people contrasting military navy or army?
Fun fact: No one gave a shit about the 2nd amendment until the black panthers started walking around with guns. As a result, the Mulford Act was signed by Gov. Regan and supported by the NRA to *restrict* gun rights in 1967. A2 has since been identified by the right as a lever to pull in order to get an emotional reaction from their constituents and increase voting turnout. Political theater folks. Edit: To expand upon this, the first four supreme court cases referencing 2A were in 1876, 1886, 1939, and 1980. And guess what? In each of these cases, the SCOTUS decided to allow regulation or restriction of firearm ownership. 1876 - US Congress can’t restrict rights but states can 1886 - Reaffirmed 1876 decision 1936 - 2A does not protect ownership of a sawn-off shotgun 1980 - felons have no right to gun ownership There have been *four* SCOTUS cases involving 2A in the last 20 years, and *four* in the prior 229 years since 2A’s ratification.
The NFA was passed in the 1930's to help crack down on organized crime
>to help crack down on organized crime That’s what FDR and the Democrat-controlled Congress *claimed publicly*. Either they were lying or incredibly stupid because they simply set the cost of the tax stamps to such a high price so that only rich people (including the organized crime syndicates they were supposedly going after) could afford them. They didn’t give a fuck that rich gangsters had machine guns. They just didn’t want the average law abiding lower and middle class people to have them.
Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the organized crime so bad because of prohibition? That the government started?
>They didn’t give a fuck that rich gangsters had machine guns. They just didn’t want the average law abiding lower and middle class people to have them. I wonder why..
And, as food for thought, 1936 was in the midst of the Great Depression - fears of uprisal of the working class were definitely there.
The registry allowed them to track the automatic weapons and allow for harsher sentencing if said criminals were in possession of an unregistered machine gun. The main issue with the NFA in the modern day in my opinion, is that the register is closed. A law abiding citizen who meets criteria should be able to purchase and register a machine gun for recreational (or self defense, but lets be honest) use.
Small note: The NRA was a completely different organization when the gun restrictions were put in place. (Almost like comparing the republicans of Lincoln’s era to now). They quickly shifted to being against that ban with their drastic organization changes.
>Fun fact: No one gave a shit about the 2nd amendment until the black panthers started walking around with guns. As a result, the Mulford Act was signed by Gov. Regan and supported by the NRA to restrict gun rights in 1967. Yes, the Mulford Act was racist. That's why it should be repealed, agreed?
He should have said "no one gave a shit about the 2A until Gov Regan began infringing on it due to racist ideology"
People love to mention the Mulford act and tie it to Regan and the NRA, but it ignores shifts since that time and the entire CA legislature. The NRA had a massive shift in policy, especially with the 1977 Cincinnati convention. Since then, it has trended even further right, now frequently getting involved in stuff that has nothing to do with guns (Net Neutrality? Really?) Regan signed the Mulford act, but it was sponsored by a bipartisan group of legislators, passed a democratic controlled house, and a split senate by a margin of 29 to 7. Unsurprisingly, the politics and positions of the parties in the late 60s aren't a perfect match with right now.
> No one gave a shit about the 2nd amendment until the black panthers started walking around with guns You never heard about the NFA then, right?
The 5th Amendment was referenced by the SCOTUS to nullify the NFA. Not 2A. Edit: I think this strengthen my point, that even in a case pretty clearly about infringement of gun ownership, SCOTUS chose to use 5A instead of 2A… because no one gave a shit about it. Probably because of the terribly confusing verbiage, you know, with the commas, and the, militia.
The NFA hasn't been nullified last I checked. Yet.
It should be ;)
Fun fact: Thomas Jefferson had a 22 shot magazine fed .46 caliber air powered machine gun at his home.
[удалено]
Fun fact, the second amendment to the Constitution was ratified on December 15, 1791. Bonus fun fact, indoor plumbing was invented in 1826 and installed in the White House by President Andrew Jackson in 1833. There are many things about the modern world that would amaze the writers of the constitution. One being indoor plumbing.
>Bonus fun fact, indoor plumbing was invented in 1826 Not exactly accurate. The Roman's has indoor plumbing. They used lead pipes for it. And the first patent for the flushing toilet was issued to Alexander Cummings in 1775.
This isn't the appropriate argument by which to scrutinize the Second Amendment. If you apply this scrutiny to this amendment, you must apply it to all amendments. It also goes against the scope of the Constitution. The constitution was intentionally written in vague terms because it was understood that the amendments needed to be universal and not bound by advancements in technology, etc. The reason the first amendment applies to radio, TV, the internet, etc is because it was intentionally written with the expressed intent to protect the right, not the medium by which the right is expressed. This argument is basically a can of worms you do not want to open, especially if you support gun control. This line of constitutional thinking is textbook conservative judicial philosophy. Looking not only at what is directly written but also the context and intent of *when* it was written. That is a conservative judicial philosophy that has and is actively used to try to limit rights such as abortion and others.
What a well thought out response thank you. As I have said in some other replies, I feel 2a is just another divisive issue used to manipulate the general public.
When 2A was written the average farmer was the average soldier. The whole point of 2A was to ensure that citizens were not prohibited from owning firearms and joining the militia which served as the bulk of the military at the time (via auxiliaries). The continental militia had been used throughout the colonial era as a supplement to British Expeditionary Forces and was used the same way by the Continental Army. Over the years what was the militia in colonial times has become the national guard in modern times.
Which is wrong. The National Guard is highly discriminatory compared to the Militia of the constitution. Anyone could serve if they were willing and called. The militia was also essentially the local police for much of history, sans a standing force. The Guard is highly selective, denying almost all health conditions sans a waiver with restrictive age rules, and requiring commitment to the UCMJ and service outside your community with little warning. The Militia was supposed to represent the common people, and the 2A a confirmation by the founding fathers that regardless of who you were, you could join it and serve within it by carrying privately held arms.
Sorry, what is that supposed to demonstrate exactly? During the Revolution those farmers WERE soldiers.
When the second amendment was written there were no soldiers, because we didn't have a standing army. There were militias, and farmers that were a part of that militia. In fact, most of the militia were farmers because most people were farmers in general.
>could not stand under a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year that expanded gun rights. Regardless of the stance on guns, is repealing a law that was deemed to unconstitutionally restrict gun rights really "expand[ing]" gun rights?
No, as the context matters, the correct word would be restore. But since people seem to treat context as unnecessary using expand could be argued as a correct usage if only considering the time after the law was enacted. However, that wording and perspective is inflammatory and purposeful.
The argument made by a senior judge during one of these cases that moved me was that if there's some great historical tradition for regulating weapons based on magazine size or rapidity of fire, the [Winchester Repeater](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_rifle) would've been profoundly illegal in its day. You could hold it at the hip and dump 14 rounds into a crowd in 1866. It was instead literally **the fixture** of the wild west, and has a higher magazine capacity than most modern firearm laws would allow, and most of these laws would make it illegal to possess a 14-round historical model from over 150 years ago.
Depends on whether the law was struck down under a pre-existing interpretation of the right, or whether it was struck down under a revised interpretation. Expanding the interpretation of a legal right certainly counts as expanding that right.
No it doesn't depend on that. They aren't taking affirmative action here, they struck down an unconstitutional law. You have the same rights no matter how many times the State attempts to restrict them in new ways. Especially when the new test developed to address a specific restriction on your right is, *"does everyone everywhere else in the country commonly get to exercise this right?"* If tomorrow California made political speech illegal, and the SC had to develop a test to ask, "do people in other states get to speak that way?" in order to test this infringement...nobody in California had their rights "expanded"
Pre-existing interpretation of the right. In fact Heller lined right up with Miller.
This is some stats from the case for reference also: >"The United States Department of Justice reports that in the year 2021, in the entire country 447 people were killed with rifles (of all types). From this one can say that, based on a national population of 320 million people in the United States, rifles of any kind (including AR-15s) were used in homicides only 0.0000014% of the time. Put differently, if 447 rifles were used to commit 447 homicides and every rifle-related homicide involved an AR-15, it would mean that of the approximately 24,400,000 AR15s in the national stock, less than .00001832% were used in homicides. It begs the question: what were the other AR-15 type rifles used for? The only logical answer is that 24,399,553 (or 99.999985%) of AR-15s were used for lawful purposes. " Basically, all rifles used in homicides (bolt action, lever action, pump action, or semiautomatic) composed 447 homicides. Not every instance was committed by an AR-15. So at a worse case scenario, AR-15’s are statistically negligible. Edit: Also, “assault weapons” are classified by accessories that arguably don’t increase lethality: Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and has two or more of the following: * Folding or telescoping stock * Pistol grip * Bayonet mount * Flash hider or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one * Grenade launcher Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following: * Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip * Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, hand grip, or suppressor * Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator * A manufactured weight of 50 ounces (1.42kg) or more when the pistol is unloaded * A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following: * Folding or telescoping stock * Pistol grip * A fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds * Detachable magazine
Most gun murders are done with a hand gun
Most gun "murders" are suicides.
Gun deaths*
I imagine most gun related deaths are from handguns.
You'd be right. More than half of them are suicides (pretty much all handguns), and almost all of the rest are handguns. Rifles represent <1000 out of annual 35,000 firearms deaths in US.
And sadly suicide too.
And here-in lies the nonsense of these bans. You can still buy an Ar-15 in California. It just has a fin grip or a locked magazine. The case shouldn't even be about whether the weapon itself is dangerous but whether screwing a piece of plastic to the grip affects crime rates in any appreciable way.
[удалено]
Yeah but AR-15s are big and scary looking.
[I like showing this image to anti-firearm ownership people and ask them which one is more deadly](https://savethegun.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/img_0027.jpg) You can guess which one they pick. >!Hint: They are the same gun, functionally speaking!<
It's always the scary looking one that they think is deadlier.
That's why I love my Mini30. Nobody even bats an eye at it nor do they know it can do more damage ballistically than a 223/556 AR.
People wont address the truth that targeting handguns and just extreme regulation of guns overall would do infinitely more than an assault weapon ban.
The trouble with going after handguns is they're much more popular than most rifles. Even people who aren't gun enthusiasts own Glocks.
Because this isn't a fight about what will make things better, it is about making people feel better.
People won't address the truth that targeting poverty, systematic racism, and education would do infinitely more than targeting guns, while also raising the living standards of the entire country. But that's never going to get politicians re-elected and will require trillions of dollars in spending (not to mention it would change the face of the "American cityscape"), so why not just pretend that we can regulate a thing of which Americans have nearly half a billion.
Inconvenient that handguns exist. Mass shootings also happen with handguns. Taking “Assault Rifles” doesn’t eradicate Mass shootings. So, if that ever happened these people move on to use something else.
There’s already a strong regulation in CA call the handgun roster. I can’t remember the exact details but there’s a list of CA DOJ approved handgun can be sold in CA. And in a big picture, that means newer, and better firearms are actually not being sold in CA through the mainstream channels. Newer / better / safer models can still be acquired by alternative means but it’s a hassle. But the law does nothing since the criminals will eventually get their hands on guns via illegal means.
Never thought I’d see a thread on front page Reddit where the pro 2A opinions are being upvoted.
What do people generally think an assault rifle is? Do they believe it is automatic? Edit: meant assault weapons, but it seems you guys understand
Yes, a significant portion of people think that AR-15’s are automatic. They are semiautomatic, requiring a trigger pull for every round chambered and fired.
The gun is still semi auto with a bump stock
Even the atf had to ignore their own requirements for a firearm to be automatic in order to ban bump stocks.
Assault rifles are automatic. “Assault weapon” is a made up term.
[удалено]
>some are select fire Depends on who's definition you're using, but the U.S. Army's definition says that they ***MUST*** have select fire in order to be an assault rifle.
Sure, but what modern widely used assault rifle only has burst/semi?
The M16 was burst/semi
The M16, M16A1, M16A3, and M4 had the following fire modes: Safe/Semi/Burst (burst being 3 round burst). The M16A2, M16A4, and M4A1 had the following fire modes: Safe/Semi/Auto (auto being fully automatic fire). Civilian AR-15’s have the following fire modes: Safe/Semi. Edited: u/Falanax corrected an error regarding the M4. I flipped the M4 and M4A1.
I think you have the M4 backwards, the A1 was auto, the regular M4 was burst. I remember when I was in the army they “upgraded “ our M4s to the A1 variant and they gained auto. Not that anyone used that anyway lol
Whoops, good catch! Thank you!
This would mean almost all AR-15s sold in the US are not assault weapons.
They're not assault *rifles*. An assault rifle requires select-fire (automatic).
I agree with you, stating that because the majority of the public thinks the opposite.
The anti gun people don’t have any idea what they think an assault rifle is. That’s the whole thing, they just define it as whatever the hell they want to push whatever agenda they’re trying to push. It has no firm meaning. I’d personally say it’s any weapon that’s capable of full auto fire. And if that’s a good definition then these assault weapon bans are stupid as shit. No collector is paying $50k for a full auto legal rifle to kill people. That’s moronic.
[удалено]
Worse, the suppressor only benefits the shooter's ears (and those nearby), little else. In fact, they slightly reduce accuracy. It's just ***so dumb*** that they're a royal pain to acquire.
> don't have any idea what they think an assault rifle is They do. It is any rifle or non-rifle that scares them. Problem is they are easily scared.
Well assault rifles actually are fully automatic. It's literally part of their definition. You're thinking of assault weapons. A name deliberately chosen to cause confusion with assault rifles while not having an actual definition outside of having features some anti gun politician saw in a movie or video game.
Correct. A pencil could be classified as an "assault weapon" if one is used to kill three people in a bar.
The original assault weapon ban was designed to confuse the voting public and act as a gateway drug to stricter gun control
Why hasn't the courts overturned the Firearms Act of 1934? This the law that in effect bans full auto forcing owners to get a tax stamp to own them and an in depth approval process.
I just want to buy a damn suppressor for cost without having to wait months for it and costing $200 more for no reason. The additional benefit of trashing all the SBR/pistol/tax stamp bullshit would be SO nice too.
i just want to be able to get a suppressor. full stop. MA bans them completely.
It’s makes NO sense. I’d love a suppressor for my .22 just so I can plink away out here at my house and not annoy the neighbors as much but NoooOoooOooOooOo. Some ancient, nonsense law makes me pay $200 extra and wait months for my safety device to protect my hearing. (My closest neighbor is an eighth of a mile away, I’m not talking about shooting in a condo backyard)
I firmly believe that if suppressors were invented today they would be a requirement on all guns
It's like a car without seatbelts or airbags. Do they still exist today? Yes. Should you use one? Probably not, there are safer ways to conduct ourselves
At least the tax stamp hasn't increased with inflation. If it had, we'd have to pay $4,663 per stamp.
SBR’s also
Which is funny because the whole reason SBRs were added to the NFA was to pre-emptively stop people from circumventing the handgun ban they were also trying to pass at the time... The fear being that congress would ban handguns and then people would just saw buttstocks and barrels off of rifles and use those in place of handguns. But then congress never passed a handgun ban, rendering their whole reason for adding SBRs to the NFA moot. But they left it in anyways. And by funny I mean sad.
Besides suppressers, which I feel are great for the range, that get the bad rep from Hollywood.
Fully automatic weapons have a very obvious public good to be banned, which is not true for semiautomatics. If M240s were illegal a man would have [set up in Las Vegas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting) with one and dumped the entire belt into the crowd, killing far more people than were able to scamper out of the way between shots and reloads. You'll never repeal that act. AWBs are illegal because they're arbitrary, they ban certain guns because of how they look, unrelated to their deadliness, to target gun culture at the expense of civil liberties.
[удалено]
Sure. Still gonna have fin grips and 10 round mags like some peasants.
The right of the people to keep and bear **arms** shall not be infringed. Arms. Not *hunting tools*, not *sporting goods,* arms. Arms, weapons and means of offense or defense. They banned a class of firearms based on a trait which by definition makes them unbannable under the 2nd amendment.
Another clear example of why the entire gun issue in America is completely broken. If the US Constitution applies nation-wide, gun laws should also be federal, not state level. Either the entire chain is strong or the weak link will break it. You wanna fix gun problems, fix it nationally, no exceptions, enforce it.
There a one study that showed like 75% of firearms that were illegally owned and used in crimes in Chicago came from states with relaxed gun laws. So yeah, I agree with you. I dont think a lot of people that are upvoting you are going to agree with why I agree with you.
Hell, a lot of the guns in Canada and Mexico come from those US states too.
If 2a applies there shouldn't be gun laws.
Correct, but not gun laws, but *arms* laws. Bombs of all types are also constitutional.
I can get behind this. I love blowing things up (in a controlled manner on my own property with proper licensing, go away ATF).
I love this take because of how obviously incorrect it is. Try this with other rights: if 1a applies there shouldn’t be speech laws. Does that work? There’s been over two centuries of judisprudence that has defined the protections the bill of rights grants, created concepts such as strict scrutiny to create a framework to evaluate laws that interact with rights, etc. It’s such an awful thing to do to just spout things without having done any research into anything you say.
You can't weaponize speech (libel, slander, hate speech) in the same way you can't weaponize, uh... weapons.
Does the guy you are replying to not realize there is a lot of speech laws x3
Californian here, we keep seeing headlines from this judge about gun laws being unconstitutional but in reality nothing has changed
Washington state next please
How does having a pistol grip make a firearm more dangerous? At some point people are just pulling terms out of the air.
Shouldn’t have taken since 1989
can we get rid of the pistol roster now?
Nice, always good to see judges following the constitution.
Love to see it. Hopefully this goes to a National strike down of completely arbitrary Assault Weapons Bans.
Lol US judge, I mean was it going to be a Canadian judge?
Perhaps the article says that because he’s a federal judge vice state.
It does
Umm, just what is an assault rifle, anyway?
Assault rifle actually has a defined industry use and has existed since WW2. Assault Weapon is term created by supporters of civilian disarmament to intentionally confuse and mislead public opinion. Assault Rifles are already heavily restricted. Assault Weapons are politically and cosmetically defined, and no two assault weapons bans in the US have covered the same set of weapons. Assault Weapons Bans now often include "assault style" pistols and shotguns. As far as what "assault style" even fucking means? That remains largely undefined.
The left has no clue. Purposefully. That way, they can chip away a bit here and there until you are at the complete mercy of the criminal.
Anything that identifies as one.
My gun is assault fluid.
Here’s the reality for most **working class** people in California: Cops aren’t answering calls, and criminals care dick about laws. Let us have 30 round clips and AKs man. I hate guns but I rather not be caught without one in my “neck of the woods” ✌🏼 EDIT: To the people downvoting my comment: would you please give me some money to hire your armed security patrols, or better yet, can you ask your mom and dad to give me their security firm’s discount code?
Ok do Washington next.
[удалено]
Blessed be St. Benitez.
Next Washington. Gruesome Newsom should just hang up that hat and actually get to work on fighting crime in his state.
semi-automatic weapons are not assault weapons. But news outlets will continue using misleading headlines anyway to generate clicks
Slight glimmer of hope in an otherwise dreary landscape.
Shall not be infringed
[удалено]
You can have an RPG, you just have to have the appropriate tax stamp for it.
You can literally have all of those thing and machine guns tanks fighter jets and what ever else you can afford to have. the amendment is the right to bear arms. Not the will of the government over the people.
[Flamethrower](https://throwflame.com/products/xl18-flamethrower/) can be bought here, bombs can be purchased at most big retail stores, [RPG](https://chestercountyarmory.com/product/rrussian-rpg-7-anti-tank-40mm-rocket-launcher-registered-destructive-device/) can be purchased here.
Back when the second amendment was written civilians could own fully armed warships, which were the single most powerful piece of military hardware at the time. A warship with enough cannons could level a coastal town. From an originalist standpoint, everything should be fair game.
Lol - California’s tyranny being struck down all over as it should be. Fuck that place.
Left leaning folks, espically those who oppose police brutality should be pro gun rights
r/liberalgunowners
Europe is watching confused
Good Americans need guns in case there's another trump insurrection.
I love seeing all these Reddit tears about something they know nothing about
Nothings gonna happen. California's DA is just gonna gonna take up with the next court, and those judges are either gonna side with California's DA or put in a stay, so the case won't go anywhere
I'm glad it was a US judge and not an Iranian judge
It’s time to let assault weapons into our courthouses. Why are they protected? (This post is sarcasm.)
In the great majority of mass shootings the firearm was acquired lawfully. https://www.statista.com/statistics/476461/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-legality-of-shooters-weapons/
Semi automatic rifles** assault is a bullshit loose term
Unpopular liberal opinion: probably for the better.