Federal Judge Strikes Down California's AR-15 Ban

[RI]

Decision

[GP270watch]

 Awful decision.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Not sure what I feel about this decision.
I do know that a lot of CA gun laws are written by legislators who don't actually know much about guns and this leads to bad outcomes for gunowners, outcomes that have results that are absolutely litigatable in the court system.

[S019]

This is a total disaster.

[Gass3268]

Judge relies on Heller for his decision, even though Heller explicitly states that bans like California's is constitutional.

[LtNOWIS]

The AR-15 is about as deadly as any other semi-automatic firearm, so this makes virtually no difference to anything.

Bans on certain types of guns and certain types of features are mostly pointless. High capacity magazine bans and bans on exotic features can very slightly mitigate the deadliness of spree shootings, so are worth considering, but it's still a whole lot of squeeze for very little juice.

The only effective policy solution would be to make it much harder for the wrong people to get guns. A very large proportion of spree shootings and gun crimes are done by people who shouldn't have firearms, so implementing an effective background check system to own a firearm is the logical course of action if we actually want to have effective policy here.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The first two sentences of the decision read like ad copy for the rifle.

[Damocles]

Freedom Decision.

[AtorBoltox]

Roger Benitez has made his decision, now let him enforce it

[Crumpets]

MS-13 something something

[AGA]

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

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

The decision bothers me - it's a court deciding the 2nd Amendment is about catering to ammosexuals while making it easier for Americans to kill each other.  The repeated claims of the AR-15 as a "self-defense weapon" are ludicrous.  Yes, you can use one to kill home intruders, much as you can transport hay in your Mustang, but neither is intended nor practical. The base design of the AR-15 is as a tool with a primary purpose of killing people in job lots while still being legal - something the decision seems very reluctant to admit.

That said, I don't think specific weapons bans are the way forward, either. We're better off restricting access to firearms in general, such as moving  most firearms into Title II.

[darklordoftech]

One can oppose a law without thinking it’s unconstitutional. Also, I think this ruling interferes with states’ rights.

[Sestak]

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

From my skim, it looks like the primary argument is that the AR-15 is “a normal gun used for normal purposes” and the judge is saying that according to Heller you are only allowed to ban “extraordinary weapons used primarily for military purposes”. Seems like a bit of a stretch to me constitutionally. Obviously 9. Cir. will be reversing this and I’m not sure there will be appetite for SCOTUS to take it. The supremes have been on the cautious side of taking even gun cases where striking down the restrictions would (imo) be much easier to justify than this.

[Dr. MB]

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

[brucejoel99]

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

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students' Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

[President Johnson]

Awful and ridiculous decision. It's a weapon of war that only belongs in the hands of the military or potentially FBI Swat Teams; who needs this for self defense or hunting?

[Geoffrey Howe]

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

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students' Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Was this put in to appease Kennedy? Because I know Stevens tried incredibly hard to make his dissent the majority.

[Ancestral Republican]

The AR-15 is about as deadly as any other semi-automatic firearm, so this makes virtually no difference to anything.

Bans on certain types of guns and certain types of features are mostly pointless. High capacity magazine bans and bans on exotic features can very slightly mitigate the deadliness of spree shootings, so are worth considering, but it's still a whole lot of squeeze for very little juice.

The only effective policy solution would be to make it much harder for the wrong people to get guns. A very large proportion of spree shootings and gun crimes are done by people who shouldn't have firearms, so implementing an effective background check system to own a firearm is the logical course of action if we actually want to have effective policy here.

Yeah, you've written this before.

And as I said to you in the other thread, a ton of/most gun crime happens because Rambo wannabes get their guns stolen. Not producing and selling the guns in the first place would be the best way to keep it out of their hands. Any idea that somehow dumping even more money into the police will make the current situation of selling unlimited guns a safe policy is delusional.

[Ancestral Republican]

The first two sentences of the decision read like ad copy for the rifle.

That's because it was probably written by the NRA.

[Lief 🗽]

Yes, unfortunately due to RBG’s selfishness, gun control will no longer exist in this country by the end of the decade. Enjoy the mass slaughter!

[Alben Barkley]

Awesome, maybe I will move to CA someday.

[Alben Barkley]

Awful and ridiculous decision. It's a weapon of war that only belongs in the hands of the military or potentially FBI Swat Teams; who needs this for self defense or hunting?

Certain types of hunting such as wild hog hunting are ideal for ARs as you need fast follow-up shots.

As for self-defense, it’s not what I would choose for home defense in an apartment in a city, that’s for sure, but a farmer out in rural California needing to protect his property because it takes an hour for the cops to get there? Why shouldn’t he be able to have one? Personally I think if we have to have these restrictions, they should take into account common sense situations like that by making them county-level laws or allowing some kind of exception for people in certain living situations rather than just statewide blanket bans. Better yet I think is my idea of a tiered licensing system in which anyone can get a basic hunting rifle or revolver with a simple background check and anyone willing to go farther screening and training could get access to any kind of gun they want if they can prove they’re responsible with it. Blanket bans and collective punishment for people who are mostly law-abiding don’t sit well with me. The laws should be tailored to be fairest for everyone; if you can own a gun without issue, you should be able to. The system can be a lot smarter and more efficient than it currently is. And the whole idea that a gun is more dangerous because it looks more “tactical” or whatever some Dems seem to have is dumb as hell.

[Ancestral Republican]

Awful and ridiculous decision. It's a weapon of war that only belongs in the hands of the military or potentially FBI Swat Teams; who needs this for self defense or hunting?

Certain types of hunting such as wild hog hunting are ideal for ARs as you need fast follow-up shots.

As for self-defense, it’s not what I would choose for home defense in an apartment in a city, that’s for sure, but a farmer out in rural California needing to protect his property because it takes an hour for the cops to get there? Why shouldn’t he be able to have one? Personally I think if we have to have these restrictions, they should take into account common sense situations like that by making them county-level laws or allowing some kind of exception for people in certain living situations rather than just statewide blanket bans. Better yet I think is my idea of a tiered licensing system in which anyone can get a basic hunting rifle or revolver with a simple background check and anyone willing to go farther screening and training could get access to any kind of gun they want if they can prove they’re responsible with it. Blanket bans and collective punishment for people who are mostly law-abiding don’t sit well with me. The laws should be tailored to be fairest for everyone; if you can own a gun without issue, you should be able to. The system can be a lot smarter and more efficient than it currently is. And the whole idea that a gun is more dangerous because it looks more “tactical” or whatever some Dems seem to have is dumb as hell.

This is so convoluted and nonsensical.

There was 0 justification for overturning this. When even a policy advocated by REAGAN is in the crosshairs of the gun fetish lobby, there are some serious issues with American discourse.

And by the way, don't pack up your Oldsmobile Roadster and head for Beverly Hills just yet. This is likely to be stayed by a higher court and if DC v Heller precedent means anything, the current SCOTUS sees this law as constitutional.

[SWE]

Rare good decision from our judicial system