SAN FRANCISCO – California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Governor Gavin Newsom announced today that the state has appealed a recent decision by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California in Miller v. Bonta that declared California's assault weapons laws unconstitutional. The Attorney General will also ask the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to stay the district court’s ruling, which would extend the current 30-day stay of the decision and leave the laws in effect throughout the appeal process.
“Equating firearms that have been used in many of the deadliest mass shootings in this country with Swiss Army knives has no basis in law or fact,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The ban on assault weapons will not put an end to all gun violence, but it is one important tool the state has to protect the safety of Californians while also respecting the rights of law-abiding residents who choose to possess firearms. We have appealed the district court’s ruling and will continue our defense of the state’s commonsense gun laws.”
My reaction: "Equating combustible materials that have been used in one of America's largest mass murders (larger than any firearms mass murder) with motor fuel has no basis in law or fact!"
“Equating firearms that have been used in many of the deadliest mass shootings in this country with Swiss Army knives has no basis in law or fact,”
ReplyDeleteThe reality is that both the Swiss Army knife and the AR-15 are weapons that are commonly owned for legal purposes.
There are millions, maybe even north of 10 million, AR-15s legally owned in the US. Banning them for the sake of a handful of bad actors is ridiculous. One might as well ban cars because of drunk drivers.
Swiss Army knives are not arms that might be used in self-defefense unless you regularly have wine bottles or Philips screws break through your front door.
DeleteIt can be used as a weapon if in a bind. By itself it is just as much of an inanimate object as an AR-15. It is the person that is using it that matters.
DeleteIIRC, more people are killed with knives than long guns.
"Commonly owned" is another non-sequitur similar to "sporting use".
ReplyDeleteThe 2A does not recognize commonality as the standard by which arms are measured. IOW, if it is "not in common use" can it then be subject to proscription? There is nothing in the 2A which suggests such tripe.
Further, since privateers were a "thing", and operated under the Constitutional authority of marque and reprisal, it follows that they already possessed the armament and equipage to accomplish said task.
"Commonly owned" is another non-sequitur similar to "sporting use".
ReplyDeleteThe 2A does not recognize commonality as the standard by which arms are measured. IOW, if it is "not in common use" can it then be subject to proscription? There is nothing in the 2A which suggests such tripe.
Further, since privateers were a "thing", and operated under the Constitutional authority of marque and reprisal, it follows that they already possessed the armament and equipage to accomplish said task.