[perotter]

Finally. Plus it goes beyond having just having them for self defense. Goes into having them for one being ready for militia duty. A former state adjacent general was part of that process.

Also details in refuting the same old gun control bs and contradictions. IMO, worth check the actual decision just for that reason.

Hats off to the SAF and the judge.

Federal Judge Rules California's Ban on Assault Rifles Is Unconstitutional

townhall.com

https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/Decision%20--%20Miller%2020210604.pdf

 

[Hipointer]

Good news for California gun owners...now, hope it sticks.

 

[lklawson]

Saint Benitez again.

Next step is losing at en banc.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[perotter]

Very unlikely that it is heard en banc any time soon. If heard again, likely to be by a 3 judge panel. The acutall next step will be if that state can get a judge to rule that this on is put on hold in July.

Even if this is thrown out by a panel or en banc of the 9th, in doing so they'd have to rule that an AR-15 isn't a 'weapon of war'.

The judge here ruled directly that the state law is unconstitutional because of an AR-15 being protected for one's self defense under Heller and it is protected for one to own for one's militia readiness under Miller(the 1939 sawed off shotgun case).

Given there are both Federal and state level militia obligations of all males and the SC having stated that niether the Fed's nor the state can say what the other can have in the way of arms finally there is a real squeeze being put on the courts to allow bans.

If the court now rules that an AR-15 isn't suitable for war, they have also ruled that an AR-15 is no more dangerous than any other firearm. Therefore a state can't ban them.

The judge really did his homework and put a lot thought into how to keep this decision intact. Or create a big can of worms for those interested in throwing it out.

Also, once the smoke clears the only thing a state will be able to do is apply a ban on womenfolk having them. No state is going to do that.

 

[lklawson]

Very unlikely that it is heard en banc any time soon. If heard again, likely to be by a 3 judge panel. The acutall next step will be if that state can get a judge to rule that this on is put on hold in July.

Even if this is thrown out by a panel or en banc of the 9th, in doing so they'd have to rule that an AR-15 isn't a 'weapon of war'.

The judge here ruled directly that the state law is unconstitutional because of an AR-15 being protected for one's self defense under Heller and it is protected for one to own for one's militia readiness under Miller(the 1939 sawed off shotgun case).

Given there are both Federal and state level militia obligations of all males and the SC having stated that niether the Fed's nor the state can say what the other can have in the way of arms finally there is a real squeeze being put on the courts to allow bans.

If the court now rules that an AR-15 isn't suitable for war, they have also ruled that an AR-15 is no more dangerous than any other firearm. Therefore a state can't ban them.

The judge really did his homework and put a lot thought into how to keep this decision intact. Or create a big can of worms for those interested in throwing it out.

Also, once the smoke clears the only thing a state will be able to do is apply a ban on womenfolk having them. No state is going to do that.

This is the same Circuit that ruled, en banc, that banning CC wasn't infringing on the 2nd because there was still the possibility of OC and then later ruled that the 2nd didn't cover OC. So forgive me if I do not share your optimism. My experience is that the majority of the 9th is more than willing to contradict themselves and ignore basic logic in order to infringe on the rights of citizens and oppress them for political purposes.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[1024Megabytes]

This is sad. Likely this pro 2nd Amendment ruling will go before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and they will uphold the terrible infringements on the 2nd Amendment for citizens of California. If it is appealed to the Supreme Court I doubt they will hear it.

Kudos to those who are trying to get the 2nd Amendment back in California. Hopefully this will go somewhere but it does not look like it to me. It does not mean that we should stop trying.