Judge rules California's ban on assault weapons unconstitutional

Because he knows he cannot demonstrate the necessity for, and efficacy of, the restrictions he wants to place on the right to keep and bear arms.

 

Why does the left seem to always confuse our rights from government suppression with private business can do what they want?

 

Why do you think the airline example is a "straw man?" The SCOTUS has never denied the State the right to regulate the ownership of guns, as may private enterprises. TOG 6 seemed to be claiming an absolute right in the second amendment. The Federal Judge's decision will be challenged and his decision, IMO, overturned. SCOTUS may require California to rewrite their law, but I seriously doubt they'll challenge California's right to regulate AR 15 usage.

 

The left is confused about a great many things, where rights are concerned.

 

The USSC has never upheld a state regulation on the ownership of guns.
The USSC, however, HAS ruled that a ban - state or otherwise - on the ownership of any "bearable arm" violates the constitution, under any level of scrutiny.
The argument, therefore, hinges on whether or not he AR15 is a "bearable arm" - a firearm in common use for traditionally legal purposes.
I defy you to present a sound argument that they are not.

 

Please show me where I have ever said any weapon should be banned.

 

They have upheld a right to gun ownership, but not denied the right of the State to regulate that ownership. I disagree with your phrase "under any level of scrutiny." IMO, that would include an absolute right to carry any such weapon. For instance, they may require licensing, training courses, background checks, etc., etc.

 

So long as that regulation does not run afoul of the constitution, sure.
Note again that no state regulation on the ownership of firearms has been upheld by the court.

Then you choose to be wrong, as those are the words of the court:
The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster.

Only if the state can demonstrate the necessity for, and efficacy of, said requirements.
Else, they are, by definition, infringements.

 

Very odd example. Is your vision for gun control living under TSA-type security followed by being locked up in a sealed tube?

 

I concede that "Heller" was a victory for pro-gun advocates, who believe the second amendment need not be related to the "militia clause" and believe the amendment protects both an individual and collective right simultaneously. Here is a key caveat, in the Scalia decision: "Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to care it in the house."

Who disqualifies Heller? Because Scalia is recognizing that someone lesser other than God may do so. In fact, he's already stated, beginning on page 54, section III, that the second amendment is NOT an unlimited right and may be restricted to non-felons, to the non-mentally ill, or forbidden to be carried out in "sensitive places, such as schools and government buildings," or may even be restricted by laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sales of arms." The answer is, in each instance, The State.

IOW, Scalia pleased his base (he was certainly a pro-gun person personally and died on a hunting trip), while un-disturbing the right of the State to limit a basic right. The only thing Scalia said was that IF Heller was not a felon (as assessed by a criminal trial conducted by the State), and that IF he wasn't assessed to be mentally ill (by a Court) and IF he agreed to abide by other State laws regarding gun controls, THEN the District Of Columbia had to provide him an opportunity to take part in a State conducted registration system.

I don't call that either an unlimited or absolute right.

 

I didn't say I liked that. But, I consider it inevitable, with more guns and a more dense and diverse population.

 

It is not inevitable or even possible. Do you know how the TSA enforces their gun free zones?

 

So you support the judges decision here? You have me quite confused.

You are basing your argument on the lethality of the round and I have gotten from your post you would support banning AR-15's what you call assault weapons, you have said no one needs something like that, so anything with a larger round would be more lethal if that round hit you so are you going to ban those rifles too else why not?

The picture is a Garand which was used in more assaults than any other US weapon in WW2. Patton said that assault rifle is what won the war in Europe it was so much better than the rifles the Germans were using. It was designed to assault and to kill better than the enemies weapons. Should that assault rifle be banned like an AR-15 ban?

 

Because airlines are not Congress or a branch of the federal government. States must also respect the rights guarantied in the Constitution. If you want to argue what a private business can do and does, OK. If you want to discuss what federal and state government can do and do, OK. But they are two entirely different discussions and should not be conflated. Do you agree?

 

trading a feeling of security for freedoms?

 

The Democrats including the President and states and city run want to ban them.

Do you support that? Do you agree with the judge in the OP that what California did was unconstitutional?

 

I don't know where they get the idea that if you said you were coming over to my house and I said GREAT but don't bring your gun that you could take me to court claiming I violated your 2nd Amendment rights.

 

At the Church shooting in Texas, the killer was just starting his murder spree when an AR-15 owner charged out of his home, and put a round in him from 50 yards. From that moment on, it was a gun battle between the AR-15 owner and the gunman, rather than the gunman and the unarmed church members, until the gunman finally fled, bled out and died.

Making that shot with an AR-15 isn't difficult. Making it with a handgun would be a challenge for anyone. The AR-15 is an excellent self-defense tool and we have a Constitutional right to own and carry them.

 

State and federal law. Scalia means that so long as he can legally own a weapon - not a felon, etc.
Nothing here changes the states are limited by the constitution in the "regulation" they can place on gun ownership, and to do so, the state must demonstrate its necessity and efficacy.
Similarly, nothing here changes the fact than a ban on any "bearable arm" violates the constitution.

 

That is good news for gun owners.
Awesome Video

 

The early 90's AWB wouldn't pass District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (200.

The AWB didn't do anything of the things it was claimed for it, other than as James Carville warned, it cost Dems the South and Congress for the first time in a generation. Dems completely dominated Congress until they went too far, and they have never regained the dominance they once took for granted.

The CA ban was before the idiotic early 90's AWB that forever cost Democrats their dominance in Congress.

And it gets better:

A Sign of Things to Come? Gun Control Bill Fails to Pass in California.

Left Wing Rioters and Thugs attacking innocent people, dragging them out of cars and beating them, burning down buildings and defunding the police, a rush to arm of up by Californians is a perfectly rational response.

​

 

When did the USSC uphold the 1994 ban?
Cite the case and quote the text from the ruling.

 

Nope.

 

Link to decision

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.n...2850515/Miller_v_Bonta_Opinion.pdf?1622850515

 

Not really. I think the line between "government" and "private enterprise" has been muddled for years and years.