Federal Judge Strikes Down California's AR-15 Ban

[ProudModerate2]

Ugg.
Is it true the judge compared these deadly guns to a Swiss army knife?

[LtNOWIS]

While I don't support AR-15 bans, I don't see how they are unconstitutional. Can someone give a TLDR of the ruling?

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

A well regulated militia

That means nothing to the right-wing lunatics. It might as well not even be part of the Second Amendment. I have always found it ironic how so-called originalists interpret this to be an absolute right in a way the Founders could have never conceived.

I want to know where the line is drawn. Most largely agree on where free speech ends. Why does the right to bear arms preclude owning weapons of war, such as machine guns, bazookas, or even nuclear arms? The 2nd Amendment had little to do with personal defense or hunting and everything to do with the ability of the people to protect themselves from tyrannical government. That is why the prefatory clause exists. Without a limiting principle on the operative clause through the prefatory clause, there is no limit on an individual right. But we do have the prefatory clause and many choose to ignore it. No other amendment of the Bill of Rights is structured in such a manner and ignored in the same manner.

I half-read a summary of an opinion 5 years ago and cranked out this fun chart, and have been referring to it whenever this comes up in online conversations. Not saying it's good or bad, just saying that this is where the lines appear to be according to the federal judiciary.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Whenever anybody tries to argue that the US is steadily marching left, just point to its gunlust.  As a nation, we’re just too far gone.  Now that I have a family, it’s quickly become a factor as to whether we should stay here.

It's unclear to me why so many liberals were convinced that the March for Our Lives protests were anything more than the last dying gasp of resistance against gun culture. Contrary to expectations, the young are the most likely to have adopted the view that gun ownership is an inviolable right, whereas the elderly are much less likely to believe this.

American liberals' self-image relies upon them seeing the youngest generation as supportive of their goals, even if that flies in the face of all reality.

Whatever makes you feel better about being on the wrong side of this issue. And as I said above, that theory's wrong. Boomers are more likely to be moronic gun fetishists than the generation that grew up watching massacre after massacre.

You are incorrect. The only people who are true zealots and fanatics who believe in "constitutional carry" or allowing felons to own AR-15's are people under the age of 40 or so. The only people who are opposed to background checks are people under the age of 40. Try finding a single elderly person who is opposed to requiring people to get a permit to conceal a handgun - you won't find them, they do not exist!

The forum misapprehends where the debate over gun control is at. It is not longer between assault weapons bans and allowing assault weapons. It's effectively between people who want to eliminate all regulations on guns and people who support the status quo with a few refinements here or there, such as universal background checks or banning a few kinds of weapons. The former is a fringe position of lunatics but those lunatics are the only people who will vote solely based on gun control. All of these people are very young.

[Badger]

While I don't support AR-15 bans, I don't see how they are unconstitutional. Can someone give a TLDR of the ruling?

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Which, like Heller, completely ignored that entire well-ordered militia thing.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Guns have no morality other than that of their owner. Banning an entire class of weapons because of perceived use case is stupid and idiotic. It’s the owners that are the problem. If you want to have gun regulation, regulate the owners and the market they exist in.

There is no doubt that many marketers in the armaments industry use racist, pseudo-patriotic, Islamophobic advertisements. There is no doubt that some people believe gun ownership makes them more moral or righteous than others, and that their privilege to own this type of property should not be regulated.

You can register titles to guns with an associated license carried by the owner in question, and make the maintenance of the license conditional on continuing education and regulations (ie. you must read what the new regulations are every year).

The blowback from red avatars acting as though the sky is falling is just ridiculous and puritanical. I like money, guns, drugs, and sex just as anyone else. So be it. With great power comes great responsibility. They aren’t mutually exclusive.

If you want to own a gun, I couldn't care less. Many people have weird kink fetishes or are interested in other forms of self-destructive behavior and those are your preferences. You can say that owning a gun is fun, that shooting at targets or pumpkins gives you a powerful sense of pleasure, that you need to have a hobby, that you want to belong to a gun club etc. These are all credible reasons for wanting to own a gun.

What I can't abide by is this petulant statement of yours "Guns have no morality other than that of their owner." This might be true in a superficial sense but if someone wants to build what is clearly a giant prison for human captives in their background, I'd be inclined to call the police, even if no one was inside and the person doing this seemed morally upstanding. Guns are actually similar in this respect: if you own a handgun, I will naturally assume it's for the purpose of killing someone, whether for self-defense or pre-meditated murder - why else would you own something like that? As the act of killing another person is generally seen to be grotesque, this means that feeling a powerful sense of revulsion at gun ownership is basically healthy.

This second paragraph might seem like it contradicts the first paragraph but I don't think it does. Gun owners seeking to convince me to allow gun ownership should try to convince me that they want to own guns because they are toys for having fun instead of telling me that they are for "self-defense" or due to "rights", the most petulant and moronic justification of all, equivalent to arguing that there is a right to own a fleshlight or a burrito but with the obvious caveat that guns are for killing, whereas people use fleshlights to eff themselves, so one can be allowed whereas the other should probably not be.

[Damocles]

If you want to own a gun, I couldn't care less. Many people have weird kink fetishes or are interested in other forms of self-destructive behavior and those are your preferences. You can say that owning a gun is fun, that shooting at targets or pumpkins gives you a powerful sense of pleasure, that you need to have a hobby, that you want to belong to a gun club etc. These are all credible reasons for wanting to own a gun.

What I can't abide by is this petulant statement of yours "Guns have no morality other than that of their owner." This might be true in a superficial sense but if someone wants to build what is clearly a giant prison for human captives in their background, I'd be inclined to call the police, even if no one was inside and the person doing this seemed morally upstanding. Guns are actually similar in this respect: if you own a handgun, I will naturally assume it's for the purpose of killing someone, whether for self-defense or pre-meditated murder - why else would you own something like that? As the act of killing another person is generally seen to be grotesque, this means that feeling a powerful sense of revulsion at gun ownership is basically healthy.

This second paragraph might seem like it contradicts the first paragraph but I don't think it does. Gun owners seeking to convince me to allow gun ownership should try to convince me that they want to own guns because they are toys for having fun instead of telling me that they are for "self-defense" or due to "rights", the most petulant and moronic justification of all, equivalent to arguing that there is a right to own a fleshlight or a burrito but with the obvious caveat that guns are for killing, whereas people use fleshlights to eff themselves, so one can be allowed whereas the other should probably not be.

Have you never seen an episode of Ian McCollum’s Forgotten Weapons? Plenty of people with the financial means to do so collect guns, too. They are fascinated more by the history of the guns themselves and the engineering behind small arms as they evolved over time, and I am, too. I would like to collect some cool old guns, too.

You said yourself that you naturally assume that guns are only for acts of killing people. The underlying problem with this belief is that it’s an assumption, not based on facts. I happen to be a former competitive sharpshooter. I almost went to state championships. Plenty of my schoolmates hunted turkeys and deer and others, because they were so poverty-stricken that hunting was the only way they could sustain themselves.

Guns aren’t inherently self-destructive or dangerous. For some, they can be an implement of liberation, of sustenance, of recreation, or of academic interest. To make the claim that every gun owner is a threat, and that every gun owner is a mass shooter in waiting, reduces people to caricatures. Guns do not have any morality other than that of their owner.

EDIT: As an aside, nobody needs to “justify” themselves to you. They have their own narratives in their heads. You won’t get through to them by haranguing them or pretending to know what’s best for them. They are imbued with free will and choice, just as you are. Maybe choose to not act as though you’re the gatekeeper of morality next time.

[Benjamin Frank]

If you want to own a gun, I couldn't care less. Many people have weird kink fetishes or are interested in other forms of self-destructive behavior and those are your preferences. You can say that owning a gun is fun, that shooting at targets or pumpkins gives you a powerful sense of pleasure, that you need to have a hobby, that you want to belong to a gun club etc. These are all credible reasons for wanting to own a gun.

What I can't abide by is this petulant statement of yours "Guns have no morality other than that of their owner." This might be true in a superficial sense but if someone wants to build what is clearly a giant prison for human captives in their background, I'd be inclined to call the police, even if no one was inside and the person doing this seemed morally upstanding. Guns are actually similar in this respect: if you own a handgun, I will naturally assume it's for the purpose of killing someone, whether for self-defense or pre-meditated murder - why else would you own something like that? As the act of killing another person is generally seen to be grotesque, this means that feeling a powerful sense of revulsion at gun ownership is basically healthy.

This second paragraph might seem like it contradicts the first paragraph but I don't think it does. Gun owners seeking to convince me to allow gun ownership should try to convince me that they want to own guns because they are toys for having fun instead of telling me that they are for "self-defense" or due to "rights", the most petulant and moronic justification of all, equivalent to arguing that there is a right to own a fleshlight or a burrito but with the obvious caveat that guns are for killing, whereas people use fleshlights to eff themselves, so one can be allowed whereas the other should probably not be.

Have you never seen an episode of Ian McCollum’s Forgotten Weapons? Plenty of people with the financial means to do so collect guns, too. They are fascinated more by the history of the guns themselves and the engineering behind small arms as they evolved over time, and I am, too. I would like to collect some cool old guns, too.

You said yourself that you naturally assume that guns are only for acts of killing people. The underlying problem with this belief is that it’s an assumption, not based on facts. I happen to be a former competitive sharpshooter. I almost went to state championships. Plenty of my schoolmates hunted turkeys and deer and others, because they were so poverty-stricken that hunting was the only way they could sustain themselves.

Guns aren’t inherently self-destructive or dangerous. For some, they can be an implement of liberation, of sustenance, of recreation, or of academic interest. To make the claim that every gun owner is a threat, and that every gun owner is a mass shooter in waiting, reduces people to caricatures. Guns do not have any morality other than that of their owner.

EDIT: As an aside, nobody needs to “justify” themselves to you. They have their own narratives in their heads. You won’t get through to them by haranguing them or pretending to know what’s best for them. They are imbued with free will and choice, just as you are. Maybe choose to not act as though you’re the gatekeeper of morality next time.

Is this true of nuclear weapons as well?  Chemical weapons? Biological weapons?

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

If you want to own a gun, I couldn't care less. Many people have weird kink fetishes or are interested in other forms of self-destructive behavior and those are your preferences. You can say that owning a gun is fun, that shooting at targets or pumpkins gives you a powerful sense of pleasure, that you need to have a hobby, that you want to belong to a gun club etc. These are all credible reasons for wanting to own a gun.

What I can't abide by is this petulant statement of yours "Guns have no morality other than that of their owner." This might be true in a superficial sense but if someone wants to build what is clearly a giant prison for human captives in their background, I'd be inclined to call the police, even if no one was inside and the person doing this seemed morally upstanding. Guns are actually similar in this respect: if you own a handgun, I will naturally assume it's for the purpose of killing someone, whether for self-defense or pre-meditated murder - why else would you own something like that? As the act of killing another person is generally seen to be grotesque, this means that feeling a powerful sense of revulsion at gun ownership is basically healthy.

This second paragraph might seem like it contradicts the first paragraph but I don't think it does. Gun owners seeking to convince me to allow gun ownership should try to convince me that they want to own guns because they are toys for having fun instead of telling me that they are for "self-defense" or due to "rights", the most petulant and moronic justification of all, equivalent to arguing that there is a right to own a fleshlight or a burrito but with the obvious caveat that guns are for killing, whereas people use fleshlights to eff themselves, so one can be allowed whereas the other should probably not be.

Have you never seen an episode of Ian McCollum’s Forgotten Weapons? Plenty of people with the financial means to do so collect guns, too. They are fascinated more by the history of the guns themselves and the engineering behind small arms as they evolved over time, and I am, too. I would like to collect some cool old guns, too.

You said yourself that you naturally assume that guns are only for acts of killing people. The underlying problem with this belief is that it’s an assumption, not based on facts. I happen to be a former competitive sharpshooter. I almost went to state championships. Plenty of my schoolmates hunted turkeys and deer and others, because they were so poverty-stricken that hunting was the only way they could sustain themselves.

Guns aren’t inherently self-destructive or dangerous. For some, they can be an implement of liberation, of sustenance, of recreation, or of academic interest. To make the claim that every gun owner is a threat, and that every gun owner is a mass shooter in waiting, reduces people to caricatures. Guns do not have any morality other than their owner.

Did you miss the part where I intentionally used the word "handgun"? No one is going to use a handgun to hunt unless the setting is a Cormac McCarthy novel and the character has nothing else to use. Competitive sharpshooting can be done with a handgun but usually people participating in that sport prefer to use rifles.

"Nuclear weapons aren't inherently self-destructive or dangerous. For some, they can be an implement of liberation, of sustenance, of recreation, or of academic interest. To make the claim that every country possessing a nuclear weapon is a threat, and that every nuclear state is a Nagasaki waiting to happen reduces countries to caricatures. Nuclear weapons do not have any morality other than their owner."

In the land of the sane, that's how your comment comes off. As gun ownership is not relevant in most other wealthy countries, you cannot convince me that gun ownership is anything other than some unnecessary and ultimately destructive hobby that we'd all be better off without. If owning large bombs or bioweapons was normalized for some reason and there were contests at cultivating rare forms of small pox in schools, I could imagine someone making similar comments as you are making about guns.

I can't say that I actually want to waste energy attempting to ban your weapon. You aren't nearly as annoying as most gun owners. In fact, you seem basically well-balanced and normal and reasonable in your rationale for owning your deadly weapons. I can respect that but I don't think you need to bother justifying it - it's allowed so no one can judge you harshly for it.

[Benjamin Frank]

While I don't support AR-15 bans, I don't see how they are unconstitutional. Can someone give a TLDR of the ruling?

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

The key word here is 'arms.'  It's interesting how right wingers who otherwise believe in 'strict constructionism' and judges ruling based on the original intent of the framers of the Constitution based on what the words in the Constitution meant at the time, drop that here.

At the time of the writing of the Constitution, the only 'arms' were flintlocks and muskets.  A strict constructionism reading then is that the right to own flintlocks and muskets shall not be infringed.  

Of course, that's not a practical reading, which is what liberals generally argue about interpreting the Constitution, and right wingers seem to like only with the Second Amendment, but this is why the Supreme Court first ruled nearly 100 years ago that weapons that are primarily used for military purposes are not 'arms' and can be banned.

The NRA has lied to people for a long time that the Second Amendment is absolute and all guns are protected, but this is a lie.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Imagine if Prop. 13 had been struck down instead.

[Damocles]

Imagine if Prop. 13 had been struck down instead.

This more than anything else would un-f#%k California.

[Damocles]

Did you miss the part where I intentionally used the word "handgun"? No one is going to use a handgun to hunt unless the setting is a Cormac McCarthy novel and the character has nothing else to use. Competitive sharpshooting can be done with a handgun but usually people participating in that sport prefer to use rifles.

"Nuclear weapons aren't inherently self-destructive or dangerous. For some, they can be an implement of liberation, of sustenance, of recreation, or of academic interest. To make the claim that every country possessing a nuclear weapon is a threat, and that every nuclear state is a Nagasaki waiting to happen reduces countries to caricatures. Nuclear weapons do not have any morality other than their owner."

In the land of the sane, that's how your comment comes off. As gun ownership is not relevant in most other wealthy countries, you cannot convince me that gun ownership is anything other than some unnecessary and ultimately destructive hobby that we'd all be better off without. If owning large bombs or bioweapons was normalized for some reason and there were contests at cultivating rare forms of small pox in schools, I could imagine someone making similar comments as you are making about guns.

I can't say that I actually want to waste energy attempting to ban your weapon. You aren't nearly as annoying as most gun owners. In fact, you seem basically well-balanced and normal and reasonable in your rationale for owning your deadly weapons. I can respect that but I don't think you need to bother justifying it - it's allowed so no one can judge you harshly for it.

Thanks for redsplaining a scene I already know about. By the way, did I make any statements about nuclear weapons or biological weapons? Last time I checked, I was talking about guns. It’s also hilarious that you showed your true colors in the last two paragraphs. You seem awfully closed-minded about the subject.

[Benjamin Frank]

Whenever anybody tries to argue that the US is steadily marching left, just point to its gunlust.  As a nation, we’re just too far gone.  Now that I have a family, it’s quickly become a factor as to whether we should stay here.

It's unclear to me why so many liberals were convinced that the March for Our Lives protests were anything more than the last dying gasp of resistance against gun culture. Contrary to expectations, the young are the most likely to have adopted the view that gun ownership is an inviolable right, whereas the elderly are much less likely to believe this.

American liberals' self-image relies upon them seeing the youngest generation as supportive of their goals, even if that flies in the face of all reality.

What do you base this on?  The loudest voices on social media aren't representative of anything.

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/545415-poll-majority-support-more-gun-laws-in-the-us 

March 29, 2021 poll

All
Should be more laws regulating guns: 57%
Should be less laws regulating guns: 13%

18-34
Should be more laws regulating guns: 61%
Should be less laws regulating guns: 21%

To be sure, 'laws regulating guns' is not necessarily proxy for banning a certain class of weapons, and there is an increasing number who oppose gun laws (or support less gun laws) but, the flow or shifts is not more important than the stock, which is that a large number of young people support more gun laws, not less.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Whenever anybody tries to argue that the US is steadily marching left, just point to its gunlust.  As a nation, we’re just too far gone.  Now that I have a family, it’s quickly become a factor as to whether we should stay here.

It's unclear to me why so many liberals were convinced that the March for Our Lives protests were anything more than the last dying gasp of resistance against gun culture. Contrary to expectations, the young are the most likely to have adopted the view that gun ownership is an inviolable right, whereas the elderly are much less likely to believe this.

American liberals' self-image relies upon them seeing the youngest generation as supportive of their goals, even if that flies in the face of all reality.

What do you base this on?  The loudest voices on social media aren't representative of anything.

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/545415-poll-majority-support-more-gun-laws-in-the-us 

March 29, 2021 poll

All
Should be more laws regulating guns: 57%
Should be less laws regulating guns: 13%

18-34
Should be more laws regulating guns: 61%
Should be less laws regulating guns: 21%

To be sure, 'laws regulating guns' is not necessarily proxy for banning a certain class of weapons, and there is an increasing number who oppose gun laws (or support less gun laws) but, the flow or shifts is not more important than the stock, which is that a large number of young people support more gun laws, not less.

I wasn't speaking specifically about guns. I was talking more about, from my perspective as a liberal by self-ID, about how young people are generally seen by those holding the torch for American liberalism in general. The impression can be created that the youth not only care about your chosen issue but agree with your solutions, and it can be hard to accept when that is not so.

[Benjamin Frank]

Whenever anybody tries to argue that the US is steadily marching left, just point to its gunlust.  As a nation, we’re just too far gone.  Now that I have a family, it’s quickly become a factor as to whether we should stay here.

It's unclear to me why so many liberals were convinced that the March for Our Lives protests were anything more than the last dying gasp of resistance against gun culture. Contrary to expectations, the young are the most likely to have adopted the view that gun ownership is an inviolable right, whereas the elderly are much less likely to believe this.

American liberals' self-image relies upon them seeing the youngest generation as supportive of their goals, even if that flies in the face of all reality.

What do you base this on?  The loudest voices on social media aren't representative of anything.

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/545415-poll-majority-support-more-gun-laws-in-the-us 

March 29, 2021 poll

All
Should be more laws regulating guns: 57%
Should be less laws regulating guns: 13%

18-34
Should be more laws regulating guns: 61%
Should be less laws regulating guns: 21%

To be sure, 'laws regulating guns' is not necessarily proxy for banning a certain class of weapons, and there is an increasing number who oppose gun laws (or support less gun laws) but, the flow or shifts is not more important than the stock, which is that a large number of young people support more gun laws, not less.

I wasn't speaking specifically about guns. I was talking more about, from my perspective as a liberal by self-ID, about how young people are generally seen by those holding the torch for American liberalism in general. The impression can be created that the youth not only care about your chosen issue but agree with your solutions, and it can be hard to accept when that is not so.

Sure, young people are as diverse as any group, but that doesn't mean that they don't generally support the liberal view on many positions.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

This is good news for Cox underdog campaign, it's not gonna be a blowout Newsom 20 pt win it's gonna be a nail biter and Cali recall is gonna dictate how Redistricting is gonna go since Cali can cut 6 Rs from the map, bit naturally if Cox wins, which is possible with Orange Suburbs, or Rs not gonna be 6 Rs cut out in Redistricting

This what's happens when you have Pelosi not paying attention to homelessness in Cali, it falls on Newsom the Gov

Pelosi is a Great Speaker but a bad Politician for her local community, because all she does is raise money for Act blue

[dead0man]

I want to know where the line is drawn. Most largely agree on where free speech ends.

no they don't

Why does the right to bear arms preclude owning weapons of war, such as machine guns, bazookas, or even nuclear arms?

it is legal to own machine guns and "bazookas" if you have a clean record, a lot of money and live in a cool county/state.  You can own tanks and fighter jets too.

The 2nd Amendment had little to do with personal defense or hunting and everything to do with the ability of the people to protect themselves from tyrannical government.

and any other entity that might threaten you or yours, whether it be bear or a rapist.

That is why the prefatory clause exists. Without a limiting principle on the operative clause through the prefatory clause, there is no limit on an individual right. But we do have the prefatory clause and many choose to ignore it. No other amendment of the Bill of Rights is structured in such a manner and ignored in the same manner.

all the other rights established in the Bill of Rights are aimed at the individual, why would the 2nd be unique?

[Ferguson97]

https://twitter.com/AnaCabrera/status/1407155855238254592

[Pro-Israel, anti-Bibi]

Glad some adults in the room were able to restore some sanity after that incompetent imbecile shat out that atrocious ruling.

[dead0man]

hopefully the Supremes push it back the other way

[Pro-Israel, anti-Bibi]

hopefully the Supremes push it back the other way

They won't. As bad as the Heller decision was, they established a pretty clear precedent that states are able to make their own laws regarding firearms. They probably won't even agree to take this case up, as has happened before in the case of this judge, who has become notoriously bad at his job over the past few years.

Not to worry, though, whenever someone has their eye on a local elementary school or McDonald's I assume they can always drive to Idaho and pick some up.