And with that U.S. District Judge Josephine Staton of Santa Ana was the first federal judge to rule on the state’s controversial law. She argued that “assault weapons” are “incredibly effective killing machines” and are not commonly used or necessary for self-defense.
Except when they are… but ignore that and the mass ownership.
The court case will next likely head to the Ninth Circuit and then, if still contested, will be referred to SCOTUS.
The Opinion on “Semi-Automatic Rifles”
“Because the Court concludes that semi-automatic assault rifles are essentially indistinguishable from M-16s, which Heller noted could be banned pursuant to longstanding prohibitions on dangerous and unusual weapons, the Court need not reach the question of whether semi-automatic rifles are excluded from the Second Amendment because they are not in common use for lawful purposes like self-defense,” Staton said.
Interesting, that seems to be… well… wrong. The most popular rifle in the United States is… stay with me here… the most popular because it is commonly used for… wait for it… lawful purposes! Like self-defense! The most commonly cited reason for buying firearms in recent decades. “…essentially indistinguishable…” Except for, you know, the selecti-fire hardware in M16’s.
“Semi-automatic rifles with non-fixed magazines, along with the other enumerated features, are incredibly effective killing machines, and the Attorney General’s evidence strongly suggests that such weapons are disproportionately used in mass shootings and that, when they are used, more people are injured and killed,” she said.
I won’t argue against the fact that the popularity and proliferation of the AR-15 has increased its appearance in mass violence incidents. However, to assume that it is because the AR-15 and similar platforms are substantially deadlier, instead of being low cost and prevalent, seems like a leap.
I receive daily advertisements for AR-15’s and they can be purchased, at the bottom end of the quality scale, for under $400. Price of entry into an AR is lower and easier on an economics scale than it has ever been. And that price is free if someone just takes one that someone else bought for lawful purposes.
“I respect the 2nd Amendment but…”
“To be sure, Plaintiffs may have legitimate interests in possessing semi-automatic rifles within the AWCA’s scope,” she concluded. “However, California has permissibly weighed those interests against the weapons’ propensity for being used for mass violence and concluded that the weapons’ lawful value is drastically outweighed by the danger they pose to California citizens.”
Anti-Gunner Translate: We don’t like these guns and are going to fabricate every reason we can to try and uphold our ban. We will say they are unusual, unusually dangerous, and only used for crime and mass murder. We will ignore any and all evidence to the contrary. We do not believe in the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and believe the monopoly on force and power should be in the hands of the government, who would never abuse it. Ever. We promise.
We can hope the 9th Circuit does their due diligence and renders a constitutional and sane opinion. Because if the most popular rifle in the U.S. isn’t in common use and cannot therefore be protected, what can?
The only coherent argument from anti-gun forces is that they believe all firearms should be banned. It has been and always shall be the only conclusion to their interim efforts. Anyone who claims otherwise is either naive, uninformed, or lying.
