Federal Court Strikes Down California’s Assault Weapons Ban

For many years, I have been critical of politicians running on promises of sweeping gun control legislation that would violate controlling case law under the Second Amendment. After every mass shooting, politicians pledge that they will get guns out of society when they know that such promises mislead voters on the range of permissible action in the area. In reality, the range of permissible legislative action is quite limited. Moreover,  limits on things like clip capacity are unlikely to make a significant difference in gun violence. Now, a federal judge has struck down California’s three-decade-old ban on assault weapons as a violation of the Second Amendment. The decision could be raised in the ongoing consideration of the nomination of David Chipman, who President Joe Biden wants to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

In Miller v. Bonta, U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez of San Diego found that the ban on weapons like the AR-15 are based on both a misunderstanding of the weapons and a misinterpretation of the Constitution.  I previously discussed many of the same issues surrounding the AR-15 which remains one of the most popular weapons in the United States:

“While a ban on AR-15s sounds compelling, it breaks down under closer review. The AR-15 and other weapons in its class use an intermediate cartridge that actually is less powerful than that used in a rifle. These weapons are often twice as powerful as a handgun but not nearly as powerful as a rifle. Moreover, guns like the AR-15 are popular because they are modular and allow for different grips and barrels.”

Judge Benitez noted many of the same issues in his decision. He held that the ban cannot satisfy any level of heightened scrutiny. He notes that the popularity of the AR-15 is due to its versatility. In the one controversial line of the opinion, he observed “Like the Swiss Army knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment. Good for both home and battle.”

The problem is that many politicians like California Gov. Gavin Newsom opposed the decision of the Supreme Court in 2008 in District of Columbia v. Heller affirming the right to bear arms is an individual right under the Second Amendment. The court has repeatedly reaffirmed that landmark decision. In 2010, the court ruled that this constitutional right applies to the states as it does to the federal government since it is one of those “fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.”

These cases are controlling, as politicians and commentators are fully aware. Benitez addresses the test for such laws and holds that the state does not come close to satisfying its burden. Before laying out this test and its application, the court notes:

The Heller test is a test that any citizen can understand. Heller asks whether a law bans a firearm that is commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. It is a hardware test. Heller draws a distinction between firearms commonly owned for lawful purposes and unusual arms adapted to unlawful uses as well as arms solely useful for military purposes. As applied to AWCA, the Heller test asks: is a modern rifle commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for a lawful purpose? For the AR-15 type rifle the answer is “yes.” The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and keep the popular AR-15 rifle and its many variants do so for lawful purposes, including self defense at home. Under Heller, that is all that is needed. Using the easy to understand Heller test, it is obvious that the California assault weapon ban is unconstitutional. Under the Heller test, judicial review can end right here.

This is only the latest major ruling by Benitez in the area. In 2017, he struck down the state’s nearly two-decade-old ban on the sales and purchases of magazines holding more than 10 bullets. As recently discussed, the Ninth Circuit upheld his decision, which is now scheduled to be reheard by an 11-member panel. These cases have a very strong chance for review before the Supreme Court given the division across the country and the 6-3 conservative majority on the Court.

The decision could have some ramifications in the pending nomination of Chipman as Director of the ATF. Chipman is a former ATF special agent and senior policy adviser for the gun control organization Giffords. In his hearing, Chipman declared that “With respect to the AR-15, I support a ban as it has been presented in a Senate bill and supported by the president. The AR-15 is a gun I was issued on ATF’s SWAT team. It’s a particularly lethal weapon and regulating it as other particular lethal weapons I have advocated for.”

Chipman was confronted on the definition of what constitutes an assault weapon. He told the Senate that the ATF defines an assault rifle as “any semi-automatic rifle capable of accepting a detachable magazine above the caliber of .22, which would include a .223, which is, you know largely the AR-15 round.”

That would include a wide array of weapons. Indeed, a statement by Judge Benitez may resonate with some senators:

“This case is not about extraordinary weapons lying at the outer limits of Second Amendment protection. The banned ‘assault weapons’ are not bazookas, howitzers, or machine guns. Those arms are dangerous and solely useful for military purposes. Instead, the firearms deemed “assault weapons” are fairly ordinary, popular, modern rifles. This is an average case about average guns used in average ways for average purposes.

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  The characterization of a finding as one of ‘fact’ or ‘law’ is not controlling. To the extent that a finding is characterized as one of ‘law’ but is more properly characterized as one of ‘fact; (or vice versa), substance prevails over form. hyperbole, and facts matter. Federal Bureau of Investigation murder statistics do not track assault rifles, but they do show that killing by knife attack is far more common than murder by any kind of rifle.”

In fairness to Chipman, he made clear that he would enforce whatever the federal law prescribes in terms of any ban or the underlying definitions.  However, he is viewed as an outspoken advocate for banning ownership of weapons like the AR-15, which was just declared as protected by this court.

These are difficult policies and difficult cases.  Reasonable people can disagree, including on the meaning of the Second Amendment. What is troubling is the level of misleading and frankly disingenuous discussion of the issue. The public is constantly being told that electing certain politicians will result in sweeping gun control when the current case law directly contradict such assertions.

That was the case in the 2020 Democratic debates where candidates make unsupportable claims and promise. For example, now President Joe Biden attacked Senator Bernie Sanders over a vote that had favored the gun industry. Biden declared that, since the vote, 150 million Americans have been killed by guns.  When people asked the campaign about roughly half of our population dying in gun violence, it said that number was probably more like 150,000.

Nevertheless, many of the candidates promised massive changes. Biden declared “I want to tell you, if I’m elected NRA, I’m coming for you, and, gun manufacturers, I’m going to take you on and I’m going to beat you.”  Beto O’Rourke ran on the issue and most famously declared “Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.” Biden later declared that he would make O’Rourke a type of “gun czar” for his Administration.

Such “hell yes” moments are likely to continue with the approaching 2022 election, but they may meet more judges who say “hell no” in constitutional challenges.

Here is the opinion: Miller v. Bonta

A shorter version of this column ran on Fox.com

63 thoughts on “Federal Court Strikes Down California’s Assault Weapons Ban”

  1. If as much time and effort was spent on ways of banning the perpetrators using semi-automatic firearms illegally we could be dealing with more pressing issues.

  2. Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin, and Adolf Hitler and have been the world’s preeminent experts on gun control. All Those Experts Agree: Gun Control Works.

  3. Taking 600 million guns is a Marxists Fantasy. It’s just not going to happen.

    Molon labe.

  4. “That was the case in the 2020 Democratic debates where candidates make unsupportable claims and promise. For example, now President Joe Biden attacked Senator Bernie Sanders over a vote that had favored the gun industry. Biden declared that, since the vote, 150 million Americans have been killed by guns. When people asked the campaign about roughly half of our population dying in gun violence, it said that number was probably more like 150,000.

    Nevertheless, many of the candidates promised massive changes. Biden declared “I want to tell you, if I’m elected NRA, I’m coming for you, and, gun manufacturers, I’m going to take you on and I’m going to beat you.” Beto O’Rourke ran on the issue and most famously declared “Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.” Biden later declared that he would make O’Rourke a type of “gun czar” for his Administration.”

    We have found the psychological trigger/causation for TDS such as displayed by so many progressive Demonkraut posters here: they view Trump’s abundant lying as Demonkraut “cultural appropriation.”

  5. Great! The judicial branch finally began the process of gaining a modicum of literacy; of learning to read.

    Someone tell them to read this:

    Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress the power to tax ONLY for “…general Welfare…,” omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual or specific welfare, redistribution of wealth or charity. General means all, not one or some.

    The same article provides Congress the power to regulate ONLY money, the “flow” of commerce and land and naval Forces.

    Additionally, the 5th Amendment right to private property is not qualified by the Constitution and is, therefore, absolute, allowing Congress no power to claim or exercise dominion over private property, the sole exception being the full taking of property under the principle of eminent domain.

    Government exists, under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to provide maximal freedom to individuals, while it is severely limited and restricted to facilitating that maximal freedom of individuals through the provision, merely, of security and infrastructure.

    Oh, and this, which allows, wait for it, Americans to keep and bear arms; any and all arms capable of being kept and borne by people (WMDs are not arms in the minds of reasonable people), understanding that ammunition and magazines are essential and absolutely necessary to the facilitation of the keeping and bearing of the aforementioned arms, and understanding that the underlying rationale for the 2nd Amendment is “…when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security…,” per the Declaration of Independence, 1776:

    2nd Amendment

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
    _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Someone tell the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court, to read that.

  6. The AR-15 was targeted because it looks especially dangerous, being black with a pistol grip, not because it actually is. A pink gun with Hello Kitty stickers fires a round too.

    A firearm is the great equalizer between weak and poor, woman and man. Without a firearm, the overwhelming majority of women would be helpless to defend themselves against a man determined to harm them. There’s nothing like a stalker to bring home the message that cops just can’t get to you in time to stop a crime in progress. Not unless they’re standing right there.

    Thanks to BLM’s defund the police campaign, law enforcement in our area have suffered harsh budget cuts. Rural areas have been informed that response time can be 45 minutes or greater. We’re on our own, essentially. Yet the Left would disarm us, too. By their actions, it appears they want no resistance against the criminals they unleash, through emptying prisons, early release for parole, and refusal to prosecute many crimes.

    Someone the next town over had a homeless man set up camp beside her backyard fence. He would masturbate if he saw her young daughter in her own backyard. Here in deep blue CA, homeless camps are encouraged and enabled. They have homeless bills of rights, right to sleep, right to pee, etc. Many parts of the state just refuse to move them on. Yet Democrats wonder why homeowners and business owners resort to “defensive architecture and landscaping.” If she had gotten into a fight with the homeless pervert, she might have been guilty of a hate crime.

    We are seeing the reasons why we have a 2nd Amendment unfold daily. If the ruling party runs mad, you at least should have the basic human right to defend yourself and your home.

    1. @KarenS – Had that been my sister and that homeless man had set up outside her place and acted in that manner, he would have very rapidly found a new place to live… That or spent considerable time in a hospital. That behavior would not be permissible.

      1. Your siblings are lucky to have you but please consider the fact so many single-parent families now exist. Also, we have men who are high on meth (WHICH IS A HUGE PROBLEM IN CA BEING EFFECTIVELY IGNORED BY ALL PUBLIC SERVICE AGENCIES) who perform all sorts of depraved behavior. Why are we ignoring the largest epidemic of all?!? CHEMICAL DRUG ABUSE is FAR MORE DANGEROUS to our Society and Peace than ANY GUNS in the hands of lawful Citizens.

      2. Canuck, it’s crazy out here in SoCal. If I recall correctly, the lady in question was either divorced or a single mom. I remember her saying it was just her and her daughter in the house. CA won’t even prosecute most crimes committed by drug addicts and/or the homeless anymore.

        Someone who appeared homeless and on drugs or with some other issue came into the restaurant where I was waiting for takeout and actually picked me up. Feet off the ground picked me up. I don’t think they meant any harm, not like that guy by the kid’s backyard, but this is what’s becoming normal in deep blue CA.

  7. “While a ban on AR-15s sounds compelling, it breaks down under closer review. The AR-15 and other weapons in its class use an intermediate cartridge that actually is less powerful than that used in a rifle. These weapons are often twice as powerful as a handgun but not nearly as powerful as a rifle. Moreover, guns like the AR-15 are popular because they are modular and allow for different grips and barrels.”

    HUH? WTF? Defining a firearm as a rifle is not based on the power of the cartridge, it’s based on the design of the barrel. Rifles are firearms that have grooving in the barrel to give the bullet a spin and improve accuracy. Yes, pistols also have rifled barrels but the term goes way back in history to define rifles as opposed to smooth-bored muskets. An AR-15 IS a rifle! So is the Winchester .22 I have in my closet. What differentiates the AR-15 from the so-called “assault rifle” is that it doesn’t have the capability to fire automatically without pulling the trigger for each shot. As for ability to kill, the most deadly small arms are shotguns loaded with buckshot. They just don’t have the range to kill at long distances as rifles do, at least they do in the hands of someone who knows how to use one.

    1. semcgowanjr – the media applies “assault rifle” to more than fully automatic weapons. The term is applied somewhat whimsically to semi-automatic rifles with a pistol grip and detachable magazine. It appears to be based on looks more than actual function.

      The judge may have intended to differentiate the AR-15 from other types of rifles or firearms like the M4 carbine, but the wording may lead to more confusion and problems.

    2. What defines a rifle is not just the barrel. A key component is whether it can be shouldered (i.e, it has a stock).

    3. “HUH? WTF? Defining a firearm as a rifle is not based on the power of the cartridge, it’s based on the design of the barrel. ”

      ATF distinguishes rifles on the length of the barrel and the design of the stock. AR-15 style weapons may be configured as rifles, short barrel rifles, and as pistoles depending on barrel length and stock configuration.

      However clumsily, the Judge is accurately distinguishing assault style weapons from what many would consider traditional rifles. The assault style weapons use intermediate power cartridges such as 5.56 NATO, Remington cal 223 (which for practical purposes is interchangeable with 5.56 NATO), 7.62x39mm Russian, 5.45x39mm Russian, German 8mm short, or US .30 cal Carbine. What many would consider traditional rifle calibers include US 30’06, 7.62x51mm NATO, German 8mm, .303 British, 7.62mm Rimmed Russian and others.

      This is significant because some anti-gun arguments center on the supposed high power of the cartridges fired by assault style weapons. The intermediate power cartridges were developed during and shortly after WWII in recognition that most infantry combat took place at much shorter ranges than previously recognized. As a result it made sense to carry more, lower powered, and lighter ammunition.

      Many do not realize that is is very easy to reconfigure an AR-15 style weapon to use a broad range of different caliber cartridges.

      Unfortunately, even pistole caliber cartridges can do major damage to the human body.

  8. So here’s how the cards currently stack up:

    Defund the police.

    Neuter and demoralize the police.

    Install a revolving door at the court house.

    Elect criminal-hugging DA’s.

    Whitewash some riots as “mostly peaceful.”

    Evade the reality of Antifa’s and BLM’s violence against the innocent.

    Deny the individual the right to protect himself, his property, and his loved ones.

    ————————————————————————————————————————————–

    And the Left’s end-game? Out of chaos and mass destruction comes a rationalization for total control.

  9. “The AR-15 and other weapons in its class use an intermediate cartridge that actually is less powerful than that used in a rifle.”

    This is a truly ill-informed statement. AR-15 style weapons are rifles, unless they meet criteria for pistols such as not having a stock. The ability to shoulder the weapon is a key component when determining pistol vs rifle. An AR pistol shoots the same ammo as the rifle version.

    Regarding power, the .22 rifle has been extremely popular for decades. It’s puny compared to the .223/5.56 of an AR-15. You’d use a .22 to kill a squirrel. You’d use an AR-15 to obliterate a squirrel. So the observation about the AR-15 being less powerful than a rifle also fails.

    So while the projectile might be considered “intermediate” it’s still powerful, and the weapon itself is a rifle in the most commonly used configurations.

    Most AR-15’s are way more powerful than pistols such as 9mm or .45 ACP. The tissue damage is dramatically more. In the aftermath of the Parkland shooting, which was carried out using an AR-15 style rifle, doctors mentioned that they were not used to seeing such large wound channels. The radiologists were astonished by the images. That’s because they’re used to seeing handgun wounds.

    So unfortunately the judge’s opinion appears to be grounded in misperceptions.

    Reality, however, favors the AR-15.

    Rifles are used in about 3% of homicides. For every rifle homicide there are 15 handgun homicides, 4 with knives, 1.7 with hands or fists, and 1.2 with blunt weapons.

    Given that the available statistics are for rifles in general, the AR-15 subset is likely smaller making the above ratios larger.

    The NYT reported that between 2007 and 2017 there were 173 deaths in mass shootings due to AR-15s – 17 per year or 1% as many knife homicides in a year.

    AR-15 style weapons are capable of of high volume highly lethal attacks which are sensationalized in the media. If you see a story on TV about someone being stabbed to death it’s just business as usual, ho-hum, maybe make the local news at 11.

    I’ve introduced several people to firearms as a sport. They are almost always afraid of the scary looking black rifle – until they shoot one. Looks don’t kill.

    1. Michael Gorback – Excellent post. I’ll expand a bit, and take a trip into the weeds, beginning with a quote:

      —————————
      “any semi-automatic rifle capable of accepting a detachable magazine ABOVE THE CALIBER of .22, which would include a .223, which is, you know largely the AR-15 round.”
      ——————————–

      Almost all “.22 caliber” bullets mic .224 inches, including the .223 Rem, the military’s 5.56 caliber and all the .22 rimfire (Short, Long and Long Rifle) bullets. (There are a few exceptions, but AFAIK none mic .220 inches.)

      So the .22 Long Rifle Mossberg Model 152 with it’s 5 round detachable magazine I’ve owned since I was 5 years old is would be banned.

      Not to mention the fact that one could easily get an upper for an AR-15 style rifle in a 20 caliber (.204 Ruger, .20 Practical, etc.) all of which use a bullet that mics .204 inches.

      Chipman made a rookie error. His ignorance or malevolence – whichever – is appalling.

    2. MG

      You miss Turley’s point.

      A 5.56X45 (AR ammunition) is far less powerful than an ordinary rifle like a 308 (7.62X51).

      As far as the power of rifle cartridges goes, the AR cartridge is in the lower third.

      1. Turleys point?? It looked like it was the judge’s statement.

        The lower 1/3 of power? What’s the upper end? 338? 45-70, .50? I doubt you’ll see many people get shot in public with a Barrett. Even with a 50 cal semiautomatic Beowolf how many rounds per mag?

        No doubt there are more powerful rounds than 5.56 but it sounds like you’ve never seen what 5.56 does to living flesh and it’s way more powerful than a typical handgun. 5.56 is 3x the muzzle energy of 9mm and the wound channels are much bigger.

  10. Wow, a judge under the sway of industry money. Shocking.

    The thing about your logic, JT, is that you’re making a case for everyone to own automatic weaponry because ‘everyone’ else does. Set aside the misunderstanding of the 2nd amendment that’s long past us and the fact the U.S. is regarded worldwide as being insane on gun policy. We’re talking sheer economics and marketing here…, and a judge in California has found a way to dress those economics in legal language. And you’re doing it too, Turley.

    Sure the rifles my friend owns that he actually makes his own ammo for (he’s a marksman and former sniper) are more ‘powerful’, but the “AR-15” is most popular for volume, not accuracy or being the most powerful. What it is good for is overcoming lack of accuracy through suppresive overload and making a bunch of weekend shooters pop a rod when one is in their hands. And, oh yes, being the most efficient way to kill a bunch of people at close range when you feel aggrieved, are suicidal and want to take a bunch of people with you at work, church, school or on the corner.

    Stupid ruling. And just pointing to the fact there have been a bunch of stupid rulings previous doesn’t make it right. Gun policy has to step into reality and leave the realm of libertarianism. It’s actually a mistake to sight the popularity of the AR-15 as if it’s a totally unique entity. The people so in love with it would own a drone or a personal nuclear weapon for the same reasons if they could. This even goes beyond the crew who believe they can fight off the ‘gubmint’ when it comes after them (hey Mespo!!)…

    The U.S. needs a dose of sanity on gun policy and hasn’t gotten it, nor is going to get it.

    eb

    1. You are the one that misinterprets the second Amendment. There are no Supreme Court cases that support any such interpretation that the individual’s right to keep and bear arms. None. All cases show an individual’s right, not a carve out for any organization such as a “National Guard.”

      Next, the assinine idea that people only buy AR variants for volume and not accuracy is garbage. AR’s have, as the judge stated, a modular system and can be highly customized. This includes a wide selection or barrels, optics, bolts, and buffers that make the rifle very accurate at distance. The rate of fire on an AR -15 is no greater than the rate fire on any other semi-automatic, even pistols, you pull the trigger once, one round is fired. That is it. People do enjoy putting a lot of rounds through them but it’s not because they are seeking to shoot as many rounds as quick as possible, it’s because they enjoy shooting period. The leftist belief of mythical gun mongers running out to shoot hundreds of thousands of rounds every weekend, with an insatiable lust to fire as many rounds as quick as they can is just that, a myth. It’s a myth because it costs alot of money to do such a thing. The sound of a gun burning through rounds goes through a gun owners head like the sound of a cash register ringing up sales.

      On top of that, rifles themselves account for an extremely small amount of deaths when it comes to weapons of choice for murderers. They tend to prefer weapons that are easily concealed on their persons, and despite having a shortened barrel and an adjustable stock an AR-15 ls not an extremely concealable weapon. Most people that own them spend a decent amount of money on them, therefore are not interested in committing crimes with them.

      Finally, I see nothing in the Constitution about the right to bear arms simply being for hunting. In fact, it is for the purpose of combating actual people. The right itself is based on the possibility of having to kill people, not a squirrel, gopher, or rabbit. The Amendment in laymens terms says that as a country we recognize that groups of men that can handle a gun and know what they are doing are needed in order to fight enemies foreign and domestic. So if we want to be able to defend ourselves the best way to ensure we have people that can shoot is to protect their right to own their own firearms. People who own their own guns are more likely to target shoot or hunt with them therefore are more likely to be proficient is their care and operation. They are more likely to hit what they shoot at. And an even better part is that the government itself does not have tp make an expenditure to arm these people because they have their own rifles and if called upon, will bring them to the fight.

      Once upon a time the British Army marched on Lexington and Concord on a mission to disarm colonists. We shot them in the face. Our nation was born from men that owned their own firearms and weren’t about to give them up so the British Army, King, or Parliment, could easily trample them. Had it not been for personal firearms capable of killing men we have no nation .

      1. “Once upon a time the British Army marched on Lexington and Concord on a mission to disarm colonists. We shot them in the face. Our nation was born from men that owned their own firearms and weren’t about to give them up so the British Army, King, or Parliment, could easily trample them. Had it not been for personal firearms capable of killing men we have no nation .”

        You deserve a musket just as much as they did.

        eb

        1. When the Second Amendment was written, the citizenry had exactly the same armaments as the military. Many towns even had canons for their citizens’ protection. So the correct response, is you deserve a weapon as good as your anticipated opponent might have. And, of course, the Amendment wasn’t contemplating protecting people from the tyranny of bear and deer.

          1. ibid.

            I recognize the ‘be prepared for when the gubmint comes to get me’ crew. They’re just as unrealistic, actually more so, than the people who won’t acknowledge the American Constitution was not set up to deal with the corporate assault that the gun (fossil fuel, pharmaceutical, etc) lobby brought.

            As to what the other guy said, in the Revolutionary War, the Patriots didn’t shoot the Brits and Hessians in the face. Instead, the Patriots got shot in the face until they strategically figured out their own particular guerrilla war…, so, not an accurate comparison.

            eb

          2. The second amendment is there so the people will have the right and the means to uphold the constitution.

    2. Stupid rulings for stupid opponents to the AR-15.

      “What it is good for is overcoming lack of accuracy through suppresive overload and making a bunch of weekend shooters pop a rod when one is in their hands.”

      Spoken like a true Diane Feinstein clone. Do you say “clip” when you should say “magazine”?

      The AR-15 is very accurate. I have never heard of “suppressive overload” with respect to firearms. Maybe in your ignorance you mean suppressive fire.

      Suppressive fire is impossible with an AR-15 unless it’s been illegally converted to full auto. The AR-15 is semiautomatic – one trigger pull = one shot fired. Maybe 10 guys with AR-15s all shooting together can lay down suppressive fire, but not one AR-15.

      Furthermore, decades of military analysis and commentary confirms that accuracy is far more important than volume fired. Full auto is insanely inaccurate. You’ve been watching Scarface and Rambo too much.

      Full auto suppressive fire is used for cover, not killing. If you’re engaged in a firefight and want to pull back to evacuate wounded, a few guys will lay down suppressive fire to keep the enemy’s head down while everyone scrambles to get away. You might also use suppressive fire to keep their heads down while you or your team members move into another position. It’s not intended to kill anyone.

      As for “popping a rod” on the weekend most ranges do not allow full auto. Even if they do it’s hideously expensive because you can run through a 30 round mag in seconds.

      I’ve shot full auto and not only did I not “pop a rod” (where do you get these weird expressions?), I was unable to control the rifle well at all, which is why most ranges don’t allow it. I had a hard time staying on paper at 10 yards.

      Although the ATF ban on bumpfire stocks was overturned by the SCOTUS I still don’t see them at the range because they are also hard to control just like full auto and have been banned. One of the guys on our deer lease tried to show off his bumpfire stock and a small group of hunters with probably 200 years of combined firearms experience almost shat themselves.

      So, having revealed yourself as someone totally clueless with completely upside concepts about the AR-15 go play in the CNN sandbox where you belong.

  11. The first 4 words of the second amendment, “A well regulated Militia”.

    Seems to me the militia is completely whacked and needs some regulation.

    1. The “well regulated militia” is after the fact of a human right acknowledged, a civil right established, in the Second Amendment.

      1. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,”

        is a separate clause as a statement of fact.
        __________________________________

        “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,”

        is a separate clause as fundamental law.
        _________________________________

        Clause

        “…a separate section of a discourse…or writing specifically : a distinct article in a formal document a clause in a contract…”
        __________________________________________________________________________________________________

        Google Dictionary

        clause

        /klôz/

        noun
        noun: clause; plural noun: clauses

        1. a unit of grammatical organization next below the sentence in rank and in traditional grammar said to consist of a subject and predicate.

        2. a particular and separate article, stipulation, or proviso in a treaty, bill, or contract.
        _____________________________________________________________________

        Merriam-Webster

        clause

        \ ˈklȯz
        \
        Definition of clause

        1 : a group of words containing a subject and predicate and functioning as a member of a complex (see complex entry 2 sense 1b(2)) or compound (see compound entry 2 sense 3b) sentence The sentence “When it rained they went inside” consists of two clauses: “when it rained” and “they went inside.”

        2 : a separate section of a discourse (see discourse entry 1 sense 2) or writing specifically : a distinct article in a formal document a clause in a contract

      2. I disagree, the preamble in the 2nd Amendment sets upits justification. In the 1790s, the Captain of a Militia judged the mental fitness and maturity of those he trusted with firearms. Those too drunk or mentally unbalanced were disarmed at his discretion.
        We need a more modern form of firearms supervision to stay consistent with the 2nd Amendment as originally crafted. It was not an “anything goes” individual right to own firearms as many now believe. Some necessary level of discipline and supervision is common sense.

        Even in he worst case of the need to confront tyrannical government, there can be no success unless there is good order and discipline among those armed to prevent criminal and anarchist elements from destroying solidarity.

    2. No “penumbras and emanations” (i.e. Twilight Amendment), judicial activism, or walls required. The civil concern is not possession, but affirmative action with the informed intent (i.e. elective, premeditated) to abort or cancel another human life with light and casual, perhaps depraved (e.g. an unarmed woman, who is no less in a vulnerable position), cause.

    3. Only why is militia mentioned? See you can’t take that part and say that it somehow claims that a some organization like the National Guard is some sort of narrow group that the right applies to. It’s common for people to make that nonsense argument but it holds zero water,

      Here is what the whole amendment means :
      ” A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,”

      This part is simply giving you one of the reasons for the Amendment. It is saying that it is recognized that well trained and armed militias are a defining factor in winning wars with the “security of a free State,” meaning wiinning wars and fighting off enemies.

      Next, ” the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

      This tells you who is entitled to this right, or what right the Amendment protects. It is clear as day, “the right of the people.” It doesn’t say the right of those designated by any state or federal government. It says, “the people.” Shall not be infringed is also clear. The government can not go make laws that deprive us of this right. This is the portion that has been trampled more than any other in the Constitution. Every gun law on the books is offensive to the “shall not be infringed” portion.

      The Amendment’s militia portion does not designate who gets the right. It simply gives you a reason for the right. The people have the right, each of us individually. So really it says something along the lines of:

      In order to quickly organize militias to fight off enemies foreign and domestic, the people of this great nation’s right to have and use guns shall not be stripped from them.

      Why? Because people that own guns tend to shoot them. They hunt with them and/or target practice with them. They are likely to teach their children to shoot, This means that the people will be familiar with firearms, and are much more likely to be proficient with their firearms, and finally, the added benefit is that the Government will have to make no expeditures in order to arm them because they already have guns of their own. This means in the event we need, “A well regulated Militia (you know, well armed and proficient),” people owning their own guns will speed up the process and make it easier to create them. These militia would not be the reserves, or the National Guard. They would be more like partisans of World War II note which Allies spent a lot of time and effort trying to train, give assistance, and arm, so they could carry out acts of sabotage, and gather information for a more conventional force, and had a real impact on the eventual German collapse.

  12. The notion that 2A was meant to give an individual a right to have a gun is flat out historical fiction that was not given any credence until about 50 years ago. The 2A was meant to protect the state militias.

    1. The 2A was meant to guarantee a citizen’s right to arms for purposes of self-defense, hunting, and training, so that they may be ready and able to serve in a well regulated militia. Short of elective abortion of another human life for light and casual I(e.g. social, political, economic) causes, witch hunts (e.g. democratic/social justice) and warlock judgments (e.g. em-pathetic appeals), and similar depraved states of mind, the Constitution does not exercise liberal license to exercise affirmative discrimination (e.g. diversity [dogma]) of individuals and groups.

  13. Having a father born in, and having lived in California as an adult myself (which I rejected and left after a couple of years), this is why I find it so disturbing when so many dem politicians openly declare they want the entire country to be California.

    In CA, leadership lies. They manipulate. They mislead. They colonize and discriminate. Very much intentionally. It used to be more confined to their borders. One can rest assured that much of the hyperbole comes from institutional CA – from green initiatives, to education, to technology – is a gigantic load of horse crap, but with consequences that are all too real for the majority populace that is not insulated by personal wealth.

    We had a little group there of other transplants to CA we hung around with. We all got fed up and left around the same time.

    1. “In CA, leadership lies. They manipulate. They mislead.”

      Unlike the dear Republican leader mister baby trump who never lies. Or mr. McConnell, or McCarthy or…
      And this includes Dear nancy P so fear not, both sides lie with about equal aplomb.

  14. Close every tobacco store and outlaw the sale of tobacco throughout all America. It kills a lot more than covid did.

    1. But people die slower from it and don’t overrun the hospitals. So we’re good with it. Plus tobacco money is a good way to finance movies.

      eb

    2. Aside from planned parent/hood institutions and practices, where there were observable year over year excess deaths, mandate-related collateral damage, and general distribution of novel vaccines, yes. The clinical trials across geographies, populations, nations, and institutions have recorded between 80 and 90% reduction of hospitalization and loss of viability with early treatments using HCQ, Ivermectin, and inhaled anti-inflammatories..

      That said, also ban cars, and sex, and sodomy (e.g. fecal transmission), and other dual-use devices and behaviors. They are playing with a double-edged scalpel.

  15. Breaking news! Demonkrautz is full of crap and lie incessantly Re. gun controls and gun laws.

  16. What kills more people? Assault weapons, all weapons or tobacco?
    Give every smoker a pistol with five bullets. Advise them to shoot themselves in the head when they get their cancer or heart attacks.
    Suicide us dangerous. Do it quicker.

    1. Not just tobacco. Any inhaled burnt green offering (e.g. marijuana) that leaves carbon deposits in the lungs. Still, given informed consent, they are personal choices, reasonably isolated, with risk factors. The civil concern is affirmative action, not possession, with the intent to abort or cancel life and rights for light and casual (e.g. social, political, economic) causes.

  17. Lefties tend to be emotional people who ignore the Constitution, fairness, and real world consequences.

    Many Lefties are good but naive (though some are venal, cynical, or angry).

    Unfortunately, many of their actions (eg introducing more racism to reduce racism (see limiting Asians at universities to favor blacks) are counter productive, unfair, and probably illegal.

    Both politicians and the educational system have a lot to answer for.

  18. Chipman, Biden choice for the ATF, is a NUT CASE, anti 2nd Amendment, A Gun Graber and a radical choice to head the ATF. His past tweets, which he attempted to remove say a lot about this NUT CASE.

    Its great the Federal Court struck down the assault weapons ban in California.

Leave a Reply