« Interesting case from Ill. Supreme Court | Main | Col. Brown's autobiography »
California laws up for governor's signature or veto
Story here. One of the bills is described as a near ban on any semiauto rifle that takes detachable magazines.
5 Comments | Leave a comment
The answer is (1) it HAS been challenged - look up 'Fresno Rifle'; essentially, in 1992, the 9th Circuit said no one had standing to challenge on 2nd Amendment grounds; and (2) 'in common use' has not yet been established at the Federal Court level.
See also the Calguns Foundation Wiki article, http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/History_of_%27Assault_Weapon%27_laws
Seems to me that if they are going to grandfather old ones with registration and not allow old ones to be transferred or new ones to be registered, you got an equal protection issue as well. Lots of constitutional issues.
You may thank the Supreme Court for these laws. Marshall was either an idiot or a genius when he decided that the Bill of Rights did not bind the states. Now that decision goes against the language of the Bill of Rights AND the supremacy clause. But as I believe judges pull all kinds of crap from the 7th planet.
The decision is even more ghastly since the law texts at the time stated the Bill of Rights bound the States.
And so today we pay for the lies of the Court and await the beneficence of the court to restore our God-given Rights eventhough the Courts do not have the authority to take or give our Rights to us.
So if you are unhappy about the state of things, realize the same court you hope to take care of you, put it to you 180 years ago.
"...The answer is (1) it HAS been challenged - look up 'Fresno Rifle'; essentially, in 1992, the 9th Circuit said no one had standing to challenge on 2nd Amendment grounds; and (2) 'in common use' has not yet been established at the Federal Court level...."
Hasn't that all been changed by the McDonald and Heller decisions, not to mention that gun show ninth circuit case?
The 64 million dollar question is: If the "assault weapons ban" is signed will it be challenged successfully in court. And why hasn't California's restrictions been challenged successfully before? After all, aren't they banning weapons that are in common use and that are demonstrably NOT unusually dangerous?