Judge overturns California assault weapons ban

[Andy_Ross]

A California judge has overturned the state's ban on assault weapons, describing the popular AR-15 rifle as "good for both home and battle".

Federal judge Roger Benitez said the law went against the constitutional Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Judge Benitez found that the way California defines military-style rifles deprives the state's residents of weapons allowed elsewhere in the US.

Governor Gavin Newsom described the ruling as a threat to public safety.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta said the authorities would appeal against the decision, which the judge suspended for 30 days to allow the appeal to be lodged.

In the opening to his ruling, Judge Benitez wrote: "Like the Swiss Army knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment. Good for both home and battle."

He said current California legislation banned "fairly ordinary, popular, modern rifles".

"This case is not about extraordinary weapons lying at the outer limits of Second Amendment protection. The banned 'assault weapons' are not bazookas, howitzers, or machine guns. Those arms are dangerous and solely useful for military purposes," the ruling said.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-57368211

 

[Belz...]

Federal judge Roger Benitez said the law went against the constitutional Second Amendment right to bear arms.

I'm always a bit confused by the interpretation of that Amendment. I mean, surely the judge would agree that nukes are a no-no despite the wording of the Amendment. And ok, the term "assault weapon" doesn't mean anything, but we're trying to find the limits of what's acceptable and what's too much for public safety and so ong.

So what's the standard?

 

[casebro]

Us gun rights advocates in California call him "Saint Benitez".

The reality is that "assault rifles" are used in an infinitesimal number of deaths. But fraidy-cat Democrats need to feel protected. And previous SCOTUS rulings allow civilians whatever arms are used by individual soldiers. Magazine fed semi-automatic weapons have been allowed for at least 100 years.

You know Rule 1 of politics- Keep the people scared so they will vote for YOU to lead them to safety. The Dem pols want votes, they don't actually care about safety. The Repubs want us scared that the Dems will take our guns, they want our votes too. I don't think either side wants to kill their cash cow by settling the issue. It's like illegal immigration...

 

[casebro]

PS: California's AWB is finally being heard in Federal court, after 25 years?

 

[TragicMonkey]

How the hell is a Swiss Army knife a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment? I have two, but it someone breaks into my house I'm reaching for a regular kitchen knife or the yard-long steel bar that's part of my barbell set.

 

[Cainkane1]

A California judge has overturned the state's ban on assault weapons, describing the popular AR-15 rifle as "good for both home and battle".

Federal judge Roger Benitez said the law went against the constitutional Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Judge Benitez found that the way California defines military-style rifles deprives the state's residents of weapons allowed elsewhere in the US.

Governor Gavin Newsom described the ruling as a threat to public safety.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta said the authorities would appeal against the decision, which the judge suspended for 30 days to allow the appeal to be lodged.

In the opening to his ruling, Judge Benitez wrote: "Like the Swiss Army knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment. Good for both home and battle."

He said current California legislation banned "fairly ordinary, popular, modern rifles".

"This case is not about extraordinary weapons lying at the outer limits of Second Amendment protection. The banned 'assault weapons' are not bazookas, howitzers, or machine guns. Those arms are dangerous and solely useful for military purposes," the ruling said.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-57368211

This argument has been put forward many many times but here it goes again. If law abiding citizens are not allowed to own guns whats to stop criminals from getting weapons on the black market and committing a crime using said illegal weapons? Anti gun laws disarm the law abiding citizens and quite frankly make things easier for criminals to rob them.

 

[RolandRat]

This argument has been put forward many many times but here it goes again. If law abiding citizens are not allowed to own guns whats to stop criminals from getting weapons on the black market and committing a crime using said illegal weapons? Anti gun laws disarm the law abiding citizens and quite frankly make things easier for criminals to rob them.

Strange how countries that don't allow their civilians the ease of access to firearms that the US does are not smouldering, hellholes run by warlords with countless civilians gunned down by criminals.

 

[PhantomWolf]

You know Rule 1 of politics- Keep the people scared so they will vote for YOU to lead them to safety. The Dem pols want votes, they don't actually care about safety. The Repubs want us scared that the Dems will take our guns, they want our votes too. I don't think either side wants to kill their cash cow by settling the issue. It's like illegal immigration...

Personally, I'd rather the gun nut next door didn't have a weapon capable of firing high-velocity metal projectiles through four or so walls. Now having said that, a 9mm Desert Eagle will put a bullet through way more than four walls, but then this is one of the reasons that I live in a country where it's illegal for the idiot next door to own either of them without special licenses, and is certainly illegal for them to start blasting away with them inside their house.

 

[marting]

PS: California's AWB is finally being heard in Federal court, after 25 years?

Maybe the federal judge and gun rights plaintiffs were waiting for more gun friendly courts. That's likely the current case.

 

[theprestige]

I'm always a bit confused by the interpretation of that Amendment. I mean, surely the judge would agree that nukes are a no-no despite the wording of the Amendment. And ok, the term "assault weapon" doesn't mean anything, but we're trying to find the limits of what's acceptable and what's too much for public safety and so ong.

So what's the standard?

"This case is not about extraordinary weapons lying at the outer limits of Second Amendment protection. The banned 'assault weapons' are not bazookas, howitzers, or machine guns. Those arms are dangerous and solely useful for military purposes," the ruling said.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-57368211​

HTH. HAND!

 

[Belz...]

"This case is not about extraordinary weapons lying at the outer limits of Second Amendment protection. The banned 'assault weapons' are not bazookas, howitzers, or machine guns. Those arms are dangerous and solely useful for military purposes," the ruling said.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-57368211​

HTH. HAND!

That's very nice but that doesn't answer my question.

 

[PhantomWolf]

This argument has been put forward many many times but here it goes again. If law abiding citizens are not allowed to own guns whats to stop criminals from getting weapons on the black market and committing a crime using said illegal weapons? Anti gun laws disarm the law abiding citizens and quite frankly make things easier for criminals to rob them.

And yet when comparing the rates of violent crime, the gun-totting US has much higher rates of murder, rape, and robbery than the anti-gun countries such as the UK, Australia, and New Zealand. How does that work?

 

[Thermal]

Personally, I'd rather the gun nut next door didn't have a weapon capable of firing high-velocity metal projectiles through four or so walls. Now having said that, a 9mm Desert Eagle will put a bullet through way more than four walls, but then this is one of the reasons that I live in a country where it's illegal for the idiot next door to own either of them without special licenses, and is certainly illegal for them to start blasting away with them inside their house.

Interesting article re four wall penetration. By 'wall', the author meant two separate pieces of 1/2" drywall, which I would not expected any resistance from at all. I mean, a teen can literally punch or kick through two (I do it all the time during demo). Throwing a little 3/8" particle board slowed the rounds down yet more. Very, very suprising that flimsy drywall would affect a rifle round at all at indoor firing ranges.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Interesting article re four wall penetration. By 'wall', the author meant two separate pieces of 1/2" drywall, which I would not expected any resistance from at all. I mean, a teen can literally punch or kick through two (I do it all the time during demo). Throwing a little 3/8" particle board slowed the rounds down yet more. Very, very suprising that flimsy drywall would affect a rifle round at all at indoor firing ranges.

In a different thread I presented figures that show a 5.56 round from an AR15 carbine has less penetration than a 9mm parabellum round from a 5 inch pistol barrel.

It's to do with the design of the rounds. 5.56 will start to tumble a lot easier than a 9mm round. It's a combination of the weight, velocity and shape of the bullet.

 

[Thermal]

In a different thread I presented figures that show a 5.56 round from an AR15 carbine has less penetration than a 9mm parabellum round from a 5 inch pistol barrel.

It's to do with the design of the rounds. 5.56 will start to tumble a lot easier than a 9mm round. It's a combination of the weight, velocity and shape of the bullet.

It seems so counterintuitive, but the math is the math. My gut feel would've been that the high velocity and spearhead bullet shape of say a .223 would slice through drywall without straying from a clean path, and the more blunt 9mm be more susceptible to tumbling

 

[paiute]

I want a bazooka

The banned 'assault weapons' are not bazookas, howitzers, or machine guns. Those arms are dangerous and solely useful for military purposes," the ruling said.

The Constitution does not say "the right of the people to keep and bear some Arms, shall not be infringed". All arms are my Constitutional right.

 

[HansMustermann]

In a different thread I presented figures that show a 5.56 round from an AR15 carbine has less penetration than a 9mm parabellum round from a 5 inch pistol barrel.

It's to do with the design of the rounds. 5.56 will start to tumble a lot easier than a 9mm round. It's a combination of the weight, velocity and shape of the bullet.

Not sure against what material or what rounds are compared.

In all tests I've seen against flak jackets, the heavy helmets the Speznaz use, etc, a 5.56mm round went straight through stuff that barely got slightly dented by a 9mm or even a .357 Magnum. As in, in one heavy helmet test, it also put a hole out the back of it.

E.g., in the EU VPAM standard, stopping a round-nose 9x19mm is PM2 class, while stopping 5.56×45mm is PM7. That's actually one up from the PM6 needed to stop mild steel core 7.62×39mm. The same kind of different scale applies to UK standards, US Army standards, etc.

Or going to the round specs, common 5.56mm rounds rated against 12mm of steel at 100m, whereas for 9mm even the PBP 9×19mm overpressure round only goes through 8mm at 10m. And yes, that's not a typo. There's actually one zero missing in the latter. The 5.56mm round still has VASTLY more penetration at 100m than some of the best 9mm rounds have at 10m.

I.e., it's not just what penetration it has at point blank range. The longer rifle round maintain the potential to go through two layers of window pane and still be lethal over a much longer distance. Whereas for a 9mm it might happen if some guy shoots and misses from across a suburban street, for a 5.56mm the same holds true for a guy at half a kilometre away.

It also doesn't help the comparison that at least in the USA, you're probably more likely to be shot at with a .45 ACP than with a 9mm. Americans seem to like 'em big. But the slower speed of a .45 ACP bullet also means it's got a LOT less penetration.

It also doesn't help that unless the one shooting a 9 mil is a soldier in the course of duty, they probably will have JHP loaded, which has MUCH less penetration. It's also MUCH less likely to be an overpressure round (the NATO 9mm round is essentially a +P Parabellum.) Many of the cheaper civillian weapons don't even have the barrel rated to (safely) shoot a +P round.

By way of comparison, from stuff like an AK for example, they're just as likely to have loaded whatever was cheaper, which may actually be a steel core bullet.


Now whether that's reason enough to forbid one or the other, you can make up your own mind. But claiming that the pistol round has more penetration than the rifle one is... misleading at best. It might be true in some niche cases, but it's very far from being true in most cases.

 

[gnome]

I can't really say I've got objective proof of this, but intuitively I think there's only so much mileage you can get out of banning certain types of weapons and we got there pretty much when fully automatic weapons were restricted. If I were in charge of proposing firearm legislation it would focus much more on keeping them out of the wrong hands with background checks and such and making sure there was a credible due process involved.

Then again if I had so much influence I'd probably drop the issue entirely for a while. It's not a trivial issue but there seem to be higher stakes matters going on that the familiar debates about gun control draw attention away from and breaks potential coalitions.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I have no idea in general how we get from unambiguous amendments to regulations in the first place. It says shall not be infringed. Why does everyone think it is acceptable for government to prevent inmates from bearing arms while incarcerated?

 

[casebro]

Strange how countries that don't allow their civilians the ease of access to firearms that the US does are not smouldering, hellholes run by warlords with countless civilians gunned down by criminals.

You can find examples from both sides of the coin, but if you disregard the homicides in 7 US cities, USA has one of the lowest homicide rates in the world. In places where life is cheap, umm, well, life is cheap.