CA Court of Appeals semi auto's are NOT covered under the 2A

[Cemeterys Gun Blob 165]

via Cal Guns Foundation

http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/2013/10/ca-court-appeal-holds-second-amendment-doesnt-protect-semi-autos/

 

California’s 4th District (Division 1) Court of Appeal just held that the Second Amendment does not apply to semi-automatic firearms

 

Read more at The Truth About Guns

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/10/robert-farago/breaking-ca-court-appeals-2a-doesnt-apply-ak-platform-rifles/

[millsan1 3]

The argument is flawed and will hopefully be appealed and reversed.

 

In the finding, the judges refer to an M16 as being a gun that would not be protected under 2A.  They then apply that assumption to an AK.

 

My thought is, even if the idea that an M16 (select Fire) is not protected under 2A (which I obviously disagree with, but w/e), a Semi AK would be, since they are materially different in function.

[illy 1]

I was just about to post on this.
 

The court's rationale is essentially:  

1- AKs can be banned because they're not in "common use" in California. It doesn't matter that they're not in common use because we banned them.

 

2- It doesn't matter that some people are privileged to have AKs and similar weapons, you still can't have them.

 

3- It doesn't matter that criminals have AKs and similar weapons and therefore having an AK is your best defense. Your right to self-defense is not about what will best defend you, it's about what's popular.    (Soon we'll all be relegated to owning Glock 19s..... with 3 round magazines and 40lb triggers).

 

4- Sure, an AK-47 isn't full-auto or selective fire like the M-16 cited in Miller, and in fact is much, MUCH more like a Ruger Mini-14 which IS totally legal. However, we think it's close enough (based on nothing of course) and so, banned.     

 

5- (my favorite  ) It's ok that other, nearly identical weapons are not banned and this one arbitrarily is. A: that's not an Equal Protection violation, cause we say it isn't. And B: Don't worry, we'll be banning those other guns soon enough.

 

 

"[n]othing compels the state 'to choose between attacking every aspect of a problem or not attacking the problem at all." Far from having to 'solve all related ills at once' , the Legislature has 'broad discretion' to proceed in an incremental and uneven manner without necessarily engaging in arbitrary and unlawful discrimination"

 

[Howard 538]

If they want to claim this then they should also claim that one does not have freedom of speech on radio, tv or the internet, as they were not envisioned when the bill of rights was formulated.  They are fully automatic speech devices.

[Pythagoras 2]

I will never set foot in California. Shame on them.

[Vlad G 345]

Err didn't Heller II already put that silliness to rest when it smacked DC over the revolver only thing, to say nothing of common use from Heller I?

[Pythagoras 2]

Err didn't Heller II already put that silliness to rest when it smacked DC over the revolver only thing, to say nothing of common use from Heller I?

That's kind of what I was thinking.

 

If I lived in Cali, this would be Molon Labe time

[carguy3j 0]

I will never set foot in California. Shame on them.

+1,000,000

For this, as well as their automotive/emissions regulations.

 

How can these clowns say/write/rule any of this with a straight face? Talk about circular logic..... They can be banned because they "are not in common use", except they aren't in common use because they were unconstitutionally banned previously. So, if someone designs/invents some new type of firearm, it illegal since it is not in common use, or is "dangerous and UNUSUAL", until what?  Enough people own/possess illegally for it to become common or "usual"?

 

What is so hard to understand about the 2nd amendment? It is actually VERY simple; despite thousands and thousands of pages of convoluted "interpretations" and "rulings". The second amendment is NOT there to ensure the ability to put holes in paper for recreational purposes, or even to harvest deer/ducks for dinner; although that certainly would have been a legitimate concern in 1776. Plain and simple. The 2nd amendment is intended to ensure that the people have, at all times, the ability to forcibly remove the government from power, if the people so determine it to be necessary.  The very reason that the government wants to limit/restrict gun ownership, is EXACTLY why the 2A exists. It was INTENDED that the government ALWAYS be fearful of the wrath of the people, in order to "regulate"  and moderate its actions.

 The things the government is doing, in the area of gun rights, the whole domestic spying thing,etc... is EXACTLY the types of things that firearms possession by the people is supposed to prevent. The founding fathers would have found it to be eminently reasonable, and morally right, for the people to have already risen up and staged a second revolution by now. There is no doubt in my mind; if Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, etc.... were here now, we'd have already had the 2nd revolution- years (maybe decades) ago. We are so far beyond the level of what the King did to the colonies, its not even funny.

[Shawnmoore81 623]

This is a prime example of an anti gun government reading laws just to push their agenda. The do what they want and there is nothing your gonna do about it.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[raz-0 1,259]

We should be happy. This is so badly done that the odds of it being overturned are pretty solid. I mean it goes DIRECTLY against stuff already said in heller. 

[mipafox 438]

 

That's kind of what I was thinking.

 

If I lived in Cali, this would be Molon Labe time

 

 

You live in Jersey. Give me a break.

[Old Glock guy 1,127]

What is so hard to understand about the 2nd amendment? It is actually VERY simple; despite thousands and thousands of pages of convoluted "interpretations" and "rulings". The second amendment is NOT there to ensure the ability to put holes in paper for recreational purposes, or even to harvest deer/ducks for dinner; although that certainly would have been a legitimate concern in 1776. Plain and simple. The 2nd amendment is intended to ensure that the people have, at all times, the ability to forcibly remove the government from power, if the people so determine it to be necessary.  The very reason that the government wants to limit/restrict gun ownership, is EXACTLY why the 2A exists. It was INTENDED that the government ALWAYS be fearful of the wrath of the people, in order to "regulate"  and moderate its actions.

 The things the government is doing, in the area of gun rights, the whole domestic spying thing,etc... is EXACTLY the types of things that firearms possession by the people is supposed to prevent. The founding fathers would have found it to be eminently reasonable, and morally right, for the people to have already risen up and staged a second revolution by now. There is no doubt in my mind; if Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, etc.... were here now, we'd have already had the 2nd revolution- years (maybe decades) ago. We are so far beyond the level of what the King did to the colonies, its not even funny.

 Well said brother!  Now wait for the NSA to come knocking at your door.

[Shane45 807]

This is why I have come to believe that almost all gun control laws are bad. There are no common sense gun laws because eventually those in power will try and subvert them to their own end.

[Sticky Grips 4]

I hope that shit hole breaks off and falls into the ocean...then again i also hope for an asteroid impact on Staten Island lol.

[71ragtopgoat 23]

Whats really scary is these are the type of lawyers/judges our education system puts out.

[Pythagoras 2]

  

 

You live in Jersey. Give me a break.

New Jersey's laws have sucked since before I was born. I wasn't, and still am not, about to commit felonies to disobey purchasing laws that predate my birth in this state- not even you would recommend I do that.

 

It seems to me that like Cali just took the good old fashioned "the founders only meant muskets" bullspit to get their foot in the door toward banning all semiautos. I really hope the Californians start being civilly disobedient.

 

Likewise, if NJ tried that it's civil disobedience time.

 

 

 

P.S. Actually no, I don't live in Jersey anymore. Nothing but sunshine and gunshine now....

[Pythagoras 2]

We should be happy. This is so badly done that the odds of it being overturned are pretty solid. I mean it goes DIRECTLY against stuff already said in heller.

I think you're right. California's ruling is completely null and void in light of the "recent" jurisprudence.

 

Let's hope everyone else realizes it....