Yesterday was Wear Orange Day, which has become something of a national event for my friends in Gun-control Nation. The concerts, demonstrations and other public gatherings that take place to remember and memorialize victims of gun violence have now been going on since 2015.
This year, however, Wear Orange Day was marked by a rather unique and auspicious event, namely, a decision by Federal District Court Judge Roger Benitez, which overturned California’s assault weapon ban and reinstated the ‘right’ of California’s law-abiding residents to buy and own an AR-15.
If you want, you can take the trouble to download and read through the 94-page decision or you can save yourself the trouble and reflect on the one sentence [Page 80] which sums up the whole thing: “the point is that most of what the Attorney General says are dangerous features on a prohibited modern rifle are also features on a Second Amendment-protected semiautomatic pistol.”
I’m not saying that I’m happy with the California assault-weapons ban being lifted, although this case will obviously now continue winding its way through the courts. What I am saying is that, like it or not, Judge Benitez got it right whereas every other advocate and legal expert on both sides of this issue has gotten it wrong. The whole notion of defining an ‘assault rifle’ based on its design, its mechanical features, or its add-on doodads (flash suppressor, sliding stock, etc.) is absurd.
Worse, my friends in Gun-control Nation who promote an assault-weapons ban based on the lethality of such guns invariably trot out the number of people who are killed or wounded by AR’s. This is also a non-argument, and contradictions which appeared in the testimony of experts (Klarevas, Allen) about the number of mass shootings was cited by Judge Benitez in knocking down California’s case.
From 1999 through 2019, my state – Massachusetts – reported 206 cases of West Nile virus, maybe three infected individuals died. Does that mean I don’t need to spray myself with mosquito-repellant when I go for a walk in the woods?
On the other hand, the idea promoted by Judge Benitez that a particular weapon’s popularity is some kind of proof that it falls under the umbrella of Constitutionally-protected guns is equally, if not more bizarre. He states that nearly two million AR-type rifles were purchased in 2018 and then says, “After handguns, modern rifles are probably the most popular firearms in America. They are quietly owned by millions of law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes ranging from home defense to sporting competitions.” {Page 16-17.]
So what? In 2020, there were at least 35 million Americans who consumed more than 16 bags of potato chips that year. Should we avoid talking about banning this extraordinarily-unhealthy processed food because so many people sit on their rear ends playing video games while chomping away?
The AR-style rifle is the usual weapon of choice used by individuals who really want to kill a lot of people in a brief period of time (James Holmes in Aurora, Adam Lanza in Sandy Hook, Stephen Paddock in Las Vegas, Omar Mateen in Orlando, et. al.) But the kid who killed and wounded 50 people at Virginia Tech in 2007 used a handgun, a point cited by Judge Benitez in his defense of 2nd-Amendment protection for assault rifles quoted above.
The fact that Americans can easily buy handguns with certain design features similar to assault rifles is no reason to extend 2nd-Amendment protection to the latter types of guns. Why not simply remove Constitutional protection from bottom-loading, semi-automatic handguns?
The reason we suffer from gun violence is because some Americans buy into the silly and stupid notion that they can walk into a gun shop, leave with a Sig or a Glock, take it to the local gun range, shoot it a couple of times and now they’re ready to defend themselves against either a ‘street thug’ or the ‘tyranny of the state.’
The good news about Miller v. Bonta is that maybe it will provoke a serious and informed discussion within Gun-control Nation about what their strategy for reducing gun violence should really be.
Jun 05, 2021 @ 11:20:22
This will wind through the courts. Meanwhile, I doubt it will incite a sudden round of truth-seeking. Absurd political rhetoric results in far more checks being sent to Gun Control Nation and Gun Nut Nation than true analysis.
Two issues. One, IIRC, to fall outside the protection of the 2A, a firearm needed to be “dangerous and unusual” per Heller and Miller. While ARs may be dangerous (as are all guns) they are far from unusual. As I said years ago, we are trying to close the door long after the horses left the barn. Two, Miller said to be within the ream of the Second Amendment, a firearm had to have some reasonable relationship to that well regulated militia. Certainly a civilian version of a military assault rifle passes that test.
Maybe as a compromise, the civilian version should have a non-removable internal magazine loaded from the top but every other military feature except selective fire. Kinda like those M-1 en bloc clips. Something to limit the number of round. I don’t recall anyone shooting up a mall with a Civilian Marksmanship Program M-1 lately. Does anyone else?
Jun 05, 2021 @ 11:28:31
Oh, and the same with handguns. The M1911, 9mm Luger, and Browning Hi Power have been in civilian hands for a century (well, almost a century for the Browning). My Hi Standard 22 match pistol is likewise a “bottom loading semiautomatic”. I think what Mike is suggesting would be the Australian Solution, and unlikely to pass the SCOTUS laugh test.
Jun 05, 2021 @ 14:10:55
To fall outside of the constitutional protection an arm must not be able to be kept and born. As of when do you ask government to define your rights? Can you not read? And yes they are governments courts, governments judges, governments salary, government promotion, governments selection….. Does government define and protect your rights? My guess is yes. I’m pretty sure it is not what the founders intended and probably would be shocked at this revelation.
These are citizens rights, citizens decide what they mean, citizens protect and enforce them. I’m equally sure that is what the founders intended.
Jun 05, 2021 @ 14:34:52
California is a perfect example of the inability of firearm organisations to even organise opposition to gun control. It is a stark reminder that no matter what firearm organisations claim they cannot take back even a village captured by gun control. In all the years of operation gun control organisations have managed to gain public support for gun laws and get them passed without opposition of any description. Each one has been accepted and promoted by firearm organisations as they have trained firearm owners to be obedient law abiding uncomplaining serfs. More than 20,000 exist added to each year at the rate of 50 to 100 per year. Gun control claims each law and the added a victory, which is true and justified. Who lost? Why are they still sitting on their bums doing nothing constructive to oppose gun laws and gun control propaganda?
California has a strong gun control movement and this will not be taken lightly. Firearm owners are busy celebrating what they had nothing to do with. They played no part in this court decision. Are they going to continue that apathy and don’t care attitude while gun control motivates and mobilises its response?
We note that Washington DC in only a few month has passed new laws that virtually negate the court decision. This has been the result every time because like the original law firearm organisations were to stupid to organise opposition. How much longer do firearm owners think they can survive this gross incompetence and unwillingness to to oppose gun control? Have firearm owners any idea how difficult it is going to be to motivate subverted firearm owners? I use the communist meaning of the word subverted.
Maybe it is time firearm owners woke up to reality. Gun control can smell victory. 9% of the population support the right to arms.
https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/a8grvrled0wcikahy-9q0g.png
Jun 05, 2021 @ 11:40:56
What this decision should provoke within the Gun-control Nation and their strategy for reducing gun violence is looking at our justice and court system. (even the gang problem)
Look at what just happened this past Wednesday in Chicago:
At least six people on bond for gun crimes were charged with new gun crimes during felony bond court proceedings.
Two of the accused, arrested together, were both escapees from the county’s electronic monitoring program that was supposed to keep them at home while they awaited trial in pending gun cases. They’re both accused of being on the street with guns equipped with devices that would allow their weapons to generate automatic fire like a machine gun. (maybe if the ATF wasn’t spending time in Mike’s gun shop, they could their job and press charges against these two)
Jun 06, 2021 @ 03:19:18
Should your anger not be directed at the government that released such dangerous people back into society. You can no more prevent criminals from obtaining guns as you can anyone form obtaining illegal drugs. You certainly cannot do that by punishing the innocent falsely and oppressively blaming an object. In fact that like prohibition is bound to fail. You cannot rehabilitate a criminal by removing objects from the innocent.
Jun 05, 2021 @ 11:52:49
Keep crying gun grabbers! I’ll use your tears to oil my bottom loading combat assault scary racist slave patrol sandy hook slaughter rifles.
“Why not simply remove Constitutional protection from bottom-loading, semi-automatic handguns?”
Go ahead and try Mike, and get as many of your friends from confiscation nation join in.
Jun 05, 2021 @ 13:55:31
If you use our tears, you are just gonna get a lot of rust in your bottom loading combat assault scary racist slave patrol sandy hook slaughter rifle. I could loan you some CLP, though.
Jun 06, 2021 @ 09:43:24
You’re a gun owner too. Shouldn’t you be happy about this? Modern Sporting Rifles will probably soon be legal in California of all places! Antigunners all over the US look to California as a model. The reversal of CA’s gun ban will be a huge blow to their morale.
No offense, but I don’t get why you keep trying to work with antigunners. I can appreciate your good intentions. But by your own admission, a whole lot of antigun folks are hostile to anyone who owns guns and doesn’t want mass disarmament. Maybe it’s time to give up on them.
Jun 06, 2021 @ 17:15:18
I don’t know. I guess I am a glutton for punishment. What I would like is to finally get a middle of the road solution to this whole “who can own what” thing, agreed to by both red and blue states as a compromise. Couple it with 50 state reciprocity. And stop moving the goalposts.
Short of that, I hope this ruling stands because as far as I am concerned, bans of rifle and handgun designs that have been in civilian hands for a hundred years are entirely inappropriate. What we need are bigger citizens, not more government.
Jun 07, 2021 @ 11:42:17
I’d be willing to give a bit ie background checks and training to get 50 state reciprocity. Too bad the antigunners probably won’t. Lots of them just don’t like if not outright hate gun owners.