California's assault weapons ban overturned

2,069 Views | 22 Replies | Last: 2 yr ago by Doc Holliday
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
California's assault weapons ban overturned as federal judge compares AR-15 to a Swiss Army knife
A federal judge Friday night overturned California's longtime ban on assault weapons, saying the state's law was unconstitutional and that prohibiting such firearms for decades was "a failed experiment."
In a 94-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez of the Southern District of California said that sections of the state ban in place since 1989 regarding military-style rifles violate the Second Amendment. Benitez characterized the assault weapons Californians are barred from using as not "bazookas, howitzers or machine guns" but rather "fairly ordinary, popular, modern rifles."
The judge then compared an AR-15 to a Swiss Army knife.
"Like the Swiss Army Knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment," Benitez said in the ruling.
In addition to issuing a permanent injunction Friday, Benitez granted a request from California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) for a 30-day stay of the ruling, which will bring about an appeal from the state.
"Today's decision is fundamentally flawed," Bonta said in a news release. "There is no sound basis in law, fact, or common sense for equating assault rifles with Swiss Army knives especially on Gun Violence Awareness Day and after the recent shootings in our own California communities."
Benitez's ruling comes at a time when the nation continues to grapple with gun violence and pushes from lawmakers to ban assault weapons. After pushing for a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines, President Biden announced in April a series of executive actions to help curb gun violence. Last month, the Justice Department released a proposed rule that would put new restrictions on "ghost guns" kits that allow buyers to assemble firearms without a serial number.
Though the actions were part of the president's first substantive response to mass shootings, he and lawmakers nationwide have faced many of the same cultural and political divisions that have stymied efforts on passing assault weapons bans.
The California ban has been revised multiple times over the past three decades. The state has argued that assault weapon restrictions have also previously been upheld by several federal district and appeals courts.
The judge's decision stems from a lawsuit filed in 2019 by a state resident and a political action committee for gun owners. The lawsuit against California said the state is "one of only a small handful of states to ban many of the most popular semiautomatic firearms in the nation because they possess one or more common characteristics, such as pistol grips and threaded barrels" that are frequently used with detachable ammunition magazines.
The AR-15, a lightweight, customizable version of the military's M16, soared in popularity after a 10-year federal ban on assault weapons expired in 2004. It has also been slammed by lawmakers and gun-control advocates for its use in mass shootings.
The state has previously argued in a court filing that a spike in sales in the past year of more than 1.16 million other types of pistols, rifles and shotguns "has not prevented law-abiding citizens in the state from acquiring a range of firearms for lawful purposes, including self-defense."
But Benitez pushed back on that notion in his ruling. Despite the ban, there are an estimated 185,569 assault weapons registered with the state, the judge said.
"This is an average case about average guns used in average ways for average purposes," Benitez wrote. "One is to be forgiven if one is persuaded by news media and others that the nation is awash with murderous AR-15 assault rifles. The facts, however, do not support this hyperbole, and facts matter."
The judge made another mention of knives in his ruling, claiming that "murder by knife occurs seven times more often than murder by rifle" in California.
It's not the first time Benitez has ruled in favor of gun rights since he was appointed by President George W. Bush and confirmed by the Senate in 2004. Benitez has previously ruled the state's ban on high-capacity magazines was unconstitutional and also struck down the restriction on remote purchases of gun ammunition. The state is appealing both of those decisions.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) lashed out at the judge's ruling in a late-night tweet, saying that Benitez comparing an AR-15 to a Swiss Army knife was a "disgusting slap in the face to those who have lost loved ones to gun violence."
"This is a direct threat to public safety and innocent Californians," Newsom said. "We won't stand for it."
Gun rights advocates celebrated Benitez's decision overturning the assault weapons ban. Alan M. Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, a Washington state-based group involved in the lawsuit, said Benitez had "shredded California gun control laws regarding modern semiautomatic rifles."
"It is clear the judge did his homework on this ruling, and we are delighted with the outcome," Gottlieb said in a statement.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/06/05/california-assault-weapons-ban-overturned/
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
All guns are designed for assault.

Armalite rifles perform worse in close quarters. They're heavier and impossible to conceal.

This idea that semi auto long rifles are more dangerous is wrong.

Whiskey Pete
How long do you want to ignore this user?
End up in the Supreme Court?
Shippou
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Good for them, the judge in the article is pretty decent when it comes to gun rights, he's the one who overturned their high capacity magazine ban. Hopefully it doesn't end up like that decision and get overturned as well.
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rawhide said:

End up in the Supreme Court?
Probably, if the issue isn't decided by another SCt case first
HuMcK
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Hot take: the AR is a terrible home defense option, just as likely to penetrate walls and hit a neighbor as the target you aimed at. When I hear someone extol the virtues of an AR in the home defense role, I assume they are a novice shooter who's firearms knowledge comes from action movies. Pistol calibers and shotguns are the move.

Happy for the ruling though, "California compliant" was always a joke.
Canon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HuMcK said:

Hot take: the AR is a terrible home defense option, just as likely to penetrate walls and hit a neighbor as the target you aimed at. When I hear someone extol the virtues of an AR in the home defense role, I assume they are a novice shooter who's firearms knowledge comes from action movies. Pistol calibers and shotguns are the move.

Happy for the ruling though, "California compliant" was always a joke.


The .556 round was designed to wound on the battlefield. The intent, vs the .762, was to take two fighters out....the wounded one and the one who had to treat him. In that way, it's not an immediate one shot stopper, but it's still plenty good. That said, it's not designed for home defense and who cares? It's a great rifle.

Home defense will always be a handgun...sometimes a shotgun if you are blind. Those are fun too.
nein51
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HuMcK said:

Hot take: the AR is a terrible home defense option, just as likely to penetrate walls and hit a neighbor as the target you aimed at. When I hear someone extol the virtues of an AR in the home defense role, I assume they are a novice shooter who's firearms knowledge comes from action movies. Pistol calibers and shotguns are the move.

Happy for the ruling though, "California compliant" was always a joke.

It's a terrible home defense weapon as is any rifle. I'm just about as big of a gun guy as it gets but I too cringe when people talk about using one for home defense. That said I do have a couple and there's an AK47 in my office closet. They would be the last things I reached for in the case of an intruder though.

You're spot on. A shotgun and/or pistol is basically always a better option.
OsoCoreyell
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I've been running a bit of an experiment for several years on which firearm will be most effective in home defense situations for most normal humans. This has involved lots of trips to a "hogans alley" in North Texas with video recording so that we can go over the performance issues with the shooter. The other benefit is that we can record things like (1) response time, (2) shot accuracy, (3) shot selection, (4) hazardous inaccuracy, (5) mobility, (6) shot interval, and (7) unsafe handling incidence.

Generally, long rifles are last in response time, shot accuracy, and mobility. Unfortunately, those are the key metrics that make up overall effectiveness, making long rifles the least effective against an active opponent.

The real question is between pistols and modified shotguns. Our original hypothesis was that pistols would out-perform shotguns in response time, shot accuracy, shot interval, and mobility, but under-perform in shot selection, hazardous inaccuracy, and unsafe handling incidence.

What we found is that for the average shooter, a modified (18.5 inch barrel) pump-action .20 guage was a near ideal weapon, especially when loaded with buck-shot. Generally, moderately experienced shooters are 30% more likely to put a disabling round into an active opponent with the least likelihood of self-injury with the modifies .20 gauge. The ability to use both hands on a light weight weapon was a game changer.

.20 v .12 gauge was also important. When loaded with buckshot, the kick from a modified .12 was a real problem, which also led to a lot of shooter hesitancy, dramatically reducing shot accuracy, and mobility, while increasing shot interval. These problems all went away with the .20.

As experience grows, the pistol becomes the better weapon, with experienced pistol shooters outperforming the modified shotgun, especially in shot interval and accuracy, though the vast, vast majority of home defense scenarios involve 2 or fewer shots.
OsoCoreyell
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Double post. Delete
Shippou
How long do you want to ignore this user?
There's so many rifle defense loads nowadays, you don't really have to worry about over penetration this day unless you're shooting 55/62 grain fmj loads out of your ar(which you shouldn't be). From personal experience shot placement matters more than anything, seen plenty of dudes overseas drop after getting hit with mk262 one time.
nein51
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Turns out trainer fighters are marginally better with their weapons. At home it needs to be easy, able to moved from room to room by a person whose adrenaline is pumping a million miles a minute and may also not be fully awake.
Shippou
How long do you want to ignore this user?
nein51 said:

Turns out trainer fighters are marginally better with their weapons. At home it needs to be easy, able to moved from room to room by a person whose adrenaline is pumping a million miles a minute and may also not be fully awake.


This is true, I'm just not gonna fault someone for what they used to defend themselves or their family. When we have our range days at the SRA I'm one of the instructors I always remind people to just breathe, if you get in a situation and over hype yourself it can have some disastrous effects. You want the weapon to become an extension of yourself and to feel natural.
redfish961
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canon said:

HuMcK said:

Hot take: the AR is a terrible home defense option, just as likely to penetrate walls and hit a neighbor as the target you aimed at. When I hear someone extol the virtues of an AR in the home defense role, I assume they are a novice shooter who's firearms knowledge comes from action movies. Pistol calibers and shotguns are the move.

Happy for the ruling though, "California compliant" was always a joke.


The .556 round was designed to wound on the battlefield. The intent, vs the .762, was to take two fighters out....the wounded one and the one who had to treat him. In that way, it's not an immediate one shot stopper, but it's still plenty good. That said, it's not designed for home defense and who cares? It's a great rifle.

Home defense will always be a handgun...sometimes a shotgun if you are blind. Those are fun too.



I'm not blind, but I would certainly say unless one is very well trained with a pistol, then a shotgun is far superior.

Someone who goes to the range every now and then and thinks they're going to be able to handle a stressful situation with a handgun is probably very wrong. Shotgun is simply point and shoot. I don't think most understand how inaccurate a pistol can be if not trained in breathing techniques and adrenaline suppression.
90sBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
redfish961 said:

Canon said:

HuMcK said:

Hot take: the AR is a terrible home defense option, just as likely to penetrate walls and hit a neighbor as the target you aimed at. When I hear someone extol the virtues of an AR in the home defense role, I assume they are a novice shooter who's firearms knowledge comes from action movies. Pistol calibers and shotguns are the move.

Happy for the ruling though, "California compliant" was always a joke.


The .556 round was designed to wound on the battlefield. The intent, vs the .762, was to take two fighters out....the wounded one and the one who had to treat him. In that way, it's not an immediate one shot stopper, but it's still plenty good. That said, it's not designed for home defense and who cares? It's a great rifle.

Home defense will always be a handgun...sometimes a shotgun if you are blind. Those are fun too.



I'm not blind, but I would certainly say unless one is very well trained with a pistol, then a shotgun is far superior.

Someone who goes to the range every now and then and thinks they're going to be able to handle a stressful situation with a handgun is probably very wrong. Shotgun is simply point and shoot. I don't think most understand how inaccurate a pistol can be if not trained in breathing techniques and adrenaline suppression.
These are the people that think police officers should "just shoot them in the leg"
nein51
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Shippou said:

nein51 said:

Turns out trainer fighters are marginally better with their weapons. At home it needs to be easy, able to moved from room to room by a person whose adrenaline is pumping a million miles a minute and may also not be fully awake.

This is true, I'm just not gonna fault someone for what they used to defend themselves or their family. When we have our range days at the SRA I'm one of the instructors I always remind people to just breathe, if you get in a situation and over hype yourself it can have some disastrous effects. You want the weapon to become an extension of yourself and to feel natural.

I agree. I've just seen people amped up on adrenaline make terrible decisions before. I would rather keep things really easy. If you can defend yourself with an AR then have at it. I just happen to think that for about 99% of people it's the wrong choice.

I used to instruct at the racetrack. Taking a 30mph exit ramp going 115 in a Ferrari works for me and I can be totally safe doing that. Most people struggle to keep the ****box within the lines going 25.

Different levels of ability, capability, comfort, etc. a trained soldier has so much more training than the average home owner it's not even funny.
Jack and DP
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ABC BEAR
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Even the police only have a 20% accuracy rate in high stress situations, so the average gun owner has no hope of being more accurate than that in a similar situation. Using a firearm even in a home defense situation may land you in court for the next decade. No thanks.

Hand to Hand combat skills are still the best form of defense and one you can take anywhere. Relying on a firearm leaves you at a real disadvantage if one isn't available when you are attacked.
nein51
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ABC BEAR said:

Even the police only have a 20% accuracy rate in high stress situations, so the average gun owner has no hope of being more accurate than that in a similar situation. Using a firearm even in a home defense situation may land you in court for the next decade. No thanks.

Hand to Hand combat skills are still the best form of defense and one you can take anywhere. Relying on a firearm leaves you at a real disadvantage if one isn't available when you are attacked.
Honestly the best skill is the one where you go out your window or back door and let them take whatever they want. You might be an awesome fighter...you're not better than a Glock17 firing at you.

There are about 100 home invasion homicides each year but in 60% of home invasions the offender is known (and domestic violence is a huge factor) so one would assume deaths would be roughly the same but that's just a guess. If you then correct/adjust for/factor for socioeconomic status I would guess that the odds of anyone on this board being involved in a home invasion while they are home are so close to 0 as to be completely statistically insignificant.

It's also worth noting that installing some form of security system is more prevention than any gun would ever be.

Again...I say that as a gun guy who has plenty of them.
Herron2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm not disagreeing but also not agreeing. I'm not convinced that at close range (in home) aim will make much difference. If I'm missing with a pistol, chances are I'm missing with a shotgun as well due to lack of spread. At least with most pistols I have a higher capacity.
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Herron2 said:

I'm not disagreeing but also not agreeing. I'm not convinced that at close range (in home) aim will make much difference. If I'm missing with a pistol, chances are I'm missing with a shotgun as well due to lack of spread. At least with most pistols I have a higher capacity.
Consider bird shot
redfish961
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Herron2 said:

I'm not disagreeing but also not agreeing. I'm not convinced that at close range (in home) aim will make much difference. If I'm missing with a pistol, chances are I'm missing with a shotgun as well due to lack of spread. At least with most pistols I have a higher capacity.


I can understand the lack of spread, because it is True. However, for the untrained in a hostile situation, give me the shotgun every day of the week.

Just to clarify, my meaning of untrained is someone that has not been trained exclusively to encounter a hostile environment.

Having served in the airborne in the army and having fired multiple different types of weapons, I understand how difficult it can be to hit a moving target even at close range.

This is the main reason that most combat forces use their pistol as a last resort. Obviously the pistol would have to be semi automatic to have any chance for those that are not used to dealing with those situations.

Even with a lack of spread, you still have a better chance of hitting a target with a shotgun in my opinion.

Even though I own several pistols, I still keep the shotgun beside my bed and I have been trained for those situations.

Buddha Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

All guns are designed for assault.

Armalite rifles perform worse in close quarters. They're heavier and impossible to conceal.

This idea that semi auto long rifles are more dangerous is wrong.


I'm ok with packing, but I don't want to be worried about people carrying big guns with more bullets than I care to walk around with. AKs and ARs have more capability to kill way more people. They out gun pistols and shotguns. We've seen this on video time and time again.
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Buddha Bear said:

Doc Holliday said:

All guns are designed for assault.

Armalite rifles perform worse in close quarters. They're heavier and impossible to conceal.

This idea that semi auto long rifles are more dangerous is wrong.


I'm ok with packing, but I don't want to be worried about people carrying big guns with more bullets than I care to walk around with. AKs and ARs have more capability to kill way more people. They out gun pistols and shotguns. We've seen this on video time and time again.
They each have their strengths and weaknesses depending on the environment.

Imagine an AR vs a sniper at a little over half a mile.
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.