Results 1 to 1 of 1
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By Beetlegeuse

Thread: Judge rules California's ban on assault weapons unconstitutional

  1. #1
    Beetlegeuse's Avatar
    Beetlegeuse is offline Knowledgeable Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013

    Judge rules California's ban on assault weapons unconstitutional

    It's the "Swiss Army Knife" of rifles. That's brilliant. And true (I wish I'd said it first).

    They come chambered in everything from .17 M2 to .50 Beowulf and combined with their almost limitless modularity, you can kit one up so it will do the business for any purpose from rat-killing to p-dogging to defending home and hearth to (within limits) elk hunting. Pretty much anything you'd want to shoot (except large dangerous game, which always was going to require special-purpose cartridges) would stay shot if you used an AR on it.

    Judge rules California's ban on assault weapons unconstitutional

    In his decision, Judge Roger T. Benitez praised the AR-15 as a "home defense weapon."

    A federal judge on Friday struck down California's ban on assault weapons as unconstitutional but left plenty of time for the state to file an appeal.

    The state’s definition of illegal military-style rifles unlawfully deprives law-abiding Californians of weapons commonly allowed in most other states and by the U.S. Supreme Court, the judge wrote.

    Judge Roger T. Benitez, who has favored pro-gun groups in past rulings, described the AR-15 rifle as an ideal weapon.

    "Like the Swiss Army Knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment," he wrote in Friday's decision.

    "Yet, the State of California makes it a crime to have an AR15 type rifle," Benitez continued. "Therefore, this Court declares the California statutes to be unconstitutional.

    He praised the AR-15 as a rifle that should be formally protected by the law for its "militia readiness."

    Gov. Gavin Newsom was indignant in a statement late Friday.... (you say that like it's a bad thing)

    Just checked the judges CV, thinking he might be a Trump 45/47 appointee. Turns out he's one of Bush 43's.

    Duba accidentally did something right. Whooda thunkit?
    Last edited by Beetlegeuse; 06-05-2021 at 11:36 AM.
    almostgone likes this.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts