Judge overturns California’s ‘assault weapons’ ban
Sometimes you have to argue on the terms set by others, so for the sake of this post we are going to pretend there is such a thing as an “assault weapon” and that it is not simply a made up term to describe black weapons the liberals think are scary looking. (I would argue we have been winning this battle in recent years, which is why the liberals have rebranded them as “weapons of war” or as “military-style” weapons)
Now we may be on the verge of winning some major battles and not simple a war of terms. California has had an “assault weapons” ban in place since the late 1980’s but that could be changing soon because a Federal Judge has just ruled this ban is unconstitutional, here is more:
A federal judge overturned California’s longtime ban on assault weapons on Friday in a ruling that likened the AR-15 to a Swiss Army knife.
Assault weapons have been banned in California since 1989, according to the ruling. The law has been updated several times since it was originally passed.
According to the ruling by US District Judge Roger Benitez of San Diego, the assault weapons ban violates the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms and deprives Californians from owning assault-style weapons commonly allowed in other states. Benitez issued a permanent injunction Friday so the law cannot be enforced.
“Like the Swiss Army Knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment,” Benitez said in the ruling. “Firearms deemed as ‘assault weapons’ are fairly ordinary, popular, modern rifles.”
He also used the ruling to criticize the media’s portrayal of these weapons:
In his ruling, the judge also criticized the news media, writing, “One is to be forgiven if one is persuaded by news media and others that the nation is awash with murderous AR-15 assault rifles. The facts, however, do not support this hyperbole, and facts matter.”
According to the article the Judge issued a permanent injunction halting the ban, however it is unclear how “permanent” the injunction will be as California has vowed to appeal this ruling. Still, it is a step in the right direction and we have to hope that when this makes it to the Supreme Court the unpredictable court will hand down the proper decision.
America's Watchtower 
And not to belabor the point but I carried a Service Rifle for decades, commanded those who did so and made it my life’s work to be a Marine Rifleman. I never heard the term ‘assault weapon’ until I read the NYT in 1992 or 1993 and was lectured by a wanker from the Center for Disease Control about the dangers of a piece of aluminum, steel and plastic. No mention of the moral decay shown so clearly by Professor Bork in his wonderful writings on the decline of the American soul. No. Blame the inanimate object. Human agency and human intent could not possibly be the problem when viewed through progressive eyes. The most fearful thing about the AR-15 and its variants is this: I can teach a 5 year old and a 95 year old to hold and squeeze off X Rings in a matter of a few hours. There is no firearm more user friendly than the AR. That goes double for women and people of small stature. The fact that women can be independent by their own agency is frightful to the progressive mind.
LikeLiked by 2 people
1992 or 1993 was right about the time they were debating banning some weapons and they had to come up with a scary sounding name and so the term “assault weapon” was born. This is how the left operates with the language and it has not changed to this day.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have now completed my second and more in depth reading of the Benitez decision. Here is one damning conclusion for you concerning the CA AWCA and nearly all other California infringements. They consistently fail to make a strict scrutiny logic case when infringing upon enumerated rights. This was true with the Mulford Actin 1969 and is true throughout CA gun control laws.Nowhere in the legislative analysis will you find validated and credible criminal studies that in any way justify a compelling public interest in restricting a right. Progressives are noted for this flaw. Arguments based upon fear, fiction and hyperbole may work on the barricades and picket lines but they do not work when crafting public law. Decades ago I did a public policy analysis paper on the Mulford Act. That act, signed by Ronald the Magnificent contained no analysis of crimes committed incidental to the open carry of firearms. It was entirely justified by the fear of black men with guns. And so it goes throughout California public policy debates. Hyperbole and fear mixed with hatred of the liberty loving serves to justify massive infringements. Facts don’t matter. And this, my friends is why California as one of many other progressive utopias is in such a mess. Facts don’t matter.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks for that info! Feelings over facts is the way of the libs. Facts can be pesky things…
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Control the language, control the culture”. While great news, I wouldn’t bet more than a penny that this ruling holds. Remember, this is California.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes on both counts. The revolution will be complete when the language is perfect…
I don’t expect this ruling to hold up either.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What’s important is the operations of our friends from South of The Border I.e. MS 13 and the other Cartels are free to ignore and remain unencumbered by such common sense decisions as they spread their death and poison throughout the states.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Maybe they just didn’t know what they are doing is illegal… 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yep, and who is going to tell them?
Speaking of which there is an excellent movie worth watching if you’re interested in a really realistic drug cartel movie and if so it is not to be missed “The counselor.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is the 3rd such ruling from Judge Benitez. The first was a masterpiece of legal reasoning knocking down our 10+ round magazine ban. That one was even upheld by the 9th Circuit Court. The second was against our dealer only ammo purchase law, but that one was overturned. This is the third and I’m crossing my fingers that it will stand.
Functionally, it makes little difference. The manufacturers of AR-15s, etc. built work arounds for the different California assault weapons laws long ago. Some of them look a little odd, but they work just fine. Still it would be nice to be able to have originals that haven’t had odd looking modifications to comply with the law.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I remember the 10+ round decision, at least California has this one judge who is not out to lunch. I didn’t know the manufacturers found all these work arounds but it is good to know. I am surprised the legislators have not started coming after them, but then again they really don’t know what they are talking about anyway so they probably don’t realize they have been bypassed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Steve, I just sent two pictures to your email, the two workarounds I know best. Also will send second email with a flowchart of the California assault weapons law. It’s a dilly.
LikeLike