Cali court says second amendment doesn’t apply to .50 calibers
Claims .50 calibers are unusual and dangerous. And assault weapons” have “such a high rate of fire and capacity for firepower that it’s function as a legitimate sports or recreational firearm is substantially outweighed by the danger that it can be used to kill and injure human beings. Of course, all weapons are dangerous but neither of these are unusual. They also mention Second Amendment right does not protect possession of a military M-16 rifle. I find that odd, in light of Miller’s differentiation about a weapon being a part of the ordinary military equipment. And, of course, the transfer of new M-16s is illegal. But possession of weapons that look like assault weapons is pretty far from unusual.
More here.
ETA: d’oh. A state court.
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:01 am
So a “Militia” is the same as a “Hunting club”?
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:36 am
It is not often that I read a judicial decision that essentially parrots the lies of lobbying organizations.
I thought the anti-gun 50 Caliber propaganda had been successfully refuted in the public mind.
Maybe I don’t read enough judicial decisions.
Maybe this court has their heads somewhere dark and smelly.
Maybe their next decisions will uphold bans on those dangerously concealable “handgun” thingies entirely, or those dangerously high capacity Ruger 10/22 thingies, or dangerously accurate scoped rifles used by “hunters” and “snipers” alike. Because the reasoning would be exactly similar to this decision’s flawed “rational basis” test of a constitutional right.
Which is perhaps why the dicta of Heller included a slapdown of “rational basis” decisions regarding the 2nd Amendment, or any other part of the Bill of Rights.
Maybe the judges did not read that part of Heller. But more likely they couldn’t see it for the colonic contents obscuring their vision.
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:43 am
Here is the footnote from Heller slapping down a “rational basis” test for 2nd Amendment cases.
27 JUSTICE BREYER correctly notes that this law, like almost all laws, would pass rational-basis scrutiny. Post, at 8. But rational-basis scrutiny is a mode of analysis we have used when evaluating laws under constitutional commands that are themselves prohibitions on irrational laws. See, e.g., Engquist v. Oregon Dept. of Agriculture, 553U. S. ___, ___ (2008) (slip op., at 9–10). In those cases, “rational basis” is not just the standard of scrutiny, but the very substance of the constitutional guarantee. Obviously, the same test could not be used to evaluate the extent to which a legislature may regulate a specific, enumerated right, be it the freedom of speech, the guarantee against double jeopardy, the right to counsel, or the right to keep and bear arms. See United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U. S. 144, 152, n. 4 (1938) (“There may be narrower scope for operation of the presumption of constitutionality [i.e., narrower than that provided by rational-basis review] when legislation appears on its face to be within a specific prohibition of the Constitution, such as those of the first ten
amendments. . .”). If all that was required to overcome the right to keep and bear arms was a rational basis, the Second Amendment would be redundant with the separate constitutional prohibitions on irrational laws, and would have no effect.
So damn the CA Appeals Court to Hell for their ignorance and their ignoring the Supreme Court precedent specifically applicable to this case.
June 3rd, 2009 at 12:42 pm
NOT the 9th Circuit, it’s a state court, thank goodness. And yes, this is what happens when you have a bad client with a bad lawyer — you get bad precedent. This is not great, but it’s not something that can’t be overturned by a better case with better lawyers down the line.
June 4th, 2009 at 12:24 am
The basis for that particular ruling was not immediately evident to me, so I immediately bought a .50 calibre sporting rifle.
June 4th, 2009 at 9:59 am
Did they say “high rate of fire?” It’s a bolt-action rifle for Pete’s sake! And the bolt weighs so much it’s like pushing an oompa loompa uphill just to chamber a round.
June 4th, 2009 at 10:01 am
Weren’t some of the rifles in George Washington’s army .50 cal or greater? Oh, the irony.