# California’s “assault weapons” ban was ruled unconstitutional



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

4 Jun 2021 

The Second Amendment “elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.” _Heller_, 554 U.S., at 635. The Supreme Court clearly holds that the Second Amendment protects guns commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. At the same time, “the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms . . . that ‘have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.’” 

_Heller_ took the already expansive zone of protection for weapons that could be used by the militia and focused on the core use of firearms for self-defense. “The [_Heller_] Court determined that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right held by the people, and not limited by the prefatory clause — ‘a well regulated Militia’ — only to ‘the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with militia service.’


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Score one for the good guys


----------



## NRA_guy (Jun 9, 2015)

Yep. Of course the taxpayers in the Commie state will be forced to pay for the state's appeal in an effort to deny them an obvious Constitutional right.

Did you notice who is missing from the list of defendants? 



> Miller’s case was supported by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC).


Yep, the NRA. They were not involved.

LINK


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Assault weapons as defined by the law are more dangerous than other firearms and are disproportionately used in crimes, mass shootings and against law enforcement, with more resulting casualties, the state attorney general's office argued, and barring them "furthers the state's important public safety interests."

Further, a surge in sales of more than 1.16 million other types of pistols, rifles and shotguns in the last year — more than a third of them to likely first-time buyers — show that the assault weapons ban "has not prevented law-abiding citizens in the state from acquiring a range of firearms for lawful purposes, including self-defense," the state contended in a court filing in March.

Similar assault weapon restrictions have previously been upheld by six other federal district and appeals courts, the state argued. Overturning the ban would allow not only assault rifles, but things like assault shotguns and assault pistols, state officials said.









U.S. Judge Overturns California's Ban On Assault Weapons


Judge Rodger Benitez ruled that the state was unlawfully depriving Californians of weapons allowed in most other states and by the Supreme Court. Gov. Gavin Newsom has condemned the decision.




www.npr.org


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

NRA_guy said:


> the NRA. They were not involved


Why is that?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

NRA_guy said:


> Yep. Of course the taxpayers in the Commie state will be forced to pay for the state's appeal in an effort to deny them an obvious Constitutional right.
> 
> Did you notice who is missing from the list of defendants?
> 
> ...


I just joined Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) but I stopped at joining the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) because I got this


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

The case will be appealed to the 9th Circuit. No thinking is required to know how they will rule, however, I don't think any blue state wants a case like this in front of SCOTUS.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Does this mean froggy can go courting again?


----------



## NRA_guy (Jun 9, 2015)

HDRider said:


> Why is that?


The NRA is broke (bankrupt). They alienated their base by funneling really big bucks (tens of millions of dollars) for lavish personal trips, no-show contracts and other questionable expenditures for upper management and their buddies instead of fighting for citizens' 2nd Amendment rights.

Link

Then to make matters worse, New York filed suit against them.

Basically, nobody loves the NRA any more. 

(My user name predates all of that.)


----------



## NRA_guy (Jun 9, 2015)

HDRider said:


> I just joined Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) but I stopped at joining the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) because I got this
> View attachment 97428


Strange. I get a secure URL (https) for them:

"https://secure.anedot.com/firearmspolicycoalition/join_fpc_win_a_q_mini_fix?sc=joingaw"

and their link for joining:

"https://www.firearmspolicy.org/"


----------



## sharkerbaby (Jan 15, 2016)

@NRA_guy so in that case, who do you believe is now the best champion for the 2nd amendment and gun rights advocacy?


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

HDRider said:


> I just joined Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) but I stopped at joining the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) because I got this
> View attachment 97428


No connection on the internet is private.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

HDRider said:


> 4 Jun 2021
> 
> The Second Amendment “elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.” _Heller_, 554 U.S., at 635. The Supreme Court clearly holds that the Second Amendment protects guns commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. At the same time, “the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms . . . that ‘have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.’”
> 
> _Heller_ took the already expansive zone of protection for weapons that could be used by the militia and focused on the core use of firearms for self-defense. “The [_Heller_] Court determined that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right held by the people, and not limited by the prefatory clause — ‘a well regulated Militia’ — only to ‘the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with militia service.’


When has a silly thing like a court ruling, or the Constitution ever stopped them in the past?


----------



## NRA_guy (Jun 9, 2015)

sharkerbaby said:


> @NRA_guy so in that case, who do you believe is now the best champion for the 2nd amendment and gun rights advocacy?


Probably the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and Gun Owners of America (GOA).

GOA | The only no compromise gun lobby in Washington

I have given GOA some money.

I had never heard of the Firearms Policy Coalition before the recent California case, but it looks like they are pretty active.

Here is somebody's opinion:

Top Gun Rights Organizations Ranked By Your Clicks Through Daily – Firearms Friendly


----------



## oregon woodsmok (Dec 19, 2010)

Just curious. If bearing arms makes a citizen eligible to participate in a militia, why are not military type of weapons the most prefered and the most protected? If I needed a militia to do what militias do, I would prefer to have them armed with machine guns and rocket launchers instead of .22 target pistols.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

I want a rocket launcher too.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Danaus29 said:


> I want a rocket launcher too.


Shouldn’t be a problem.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

GTX63 said:


> The case will be appealed to the 9th Circuit. No thinking is required to know how they will rule, however, I don't think any blue state wants a case like this in front of SCOTUS.


Ding, ding, ding.... we have a winner.









California 'assault weapons' ban repeal blocked by 9th Circuit


The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily blocked a federal district court ruling that would have repealed California's assault weapons ban.




www.foxnews.com


----------

