So a George W. Bush appointed federal judge in California has decided that the state has no compelling interest in banning assault weapons, inter alia declaring that:
“Like the Swiss Army Knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment…”
I’ve always found my AR-15 to be the perfect tool for opening beer bottles–just make sure you hit the neck cleanly, and that no one’s behind the bottle for a few hundred yards.
Fuck that judge. Just fuck him. I’m not going to bother fisking his masturbatory 97 (NINETY-SEVEN) page opinion that seems to think that because other states permit weapons of mass murder, California must too. I’m not going to trot out careful arguments or mortality data or international comparisons or suicide numbers or any of that stuff because this is not a reasoned, coherent legal decision.
It’s just guns=good and if the tree of liberty gets watered from time to time, too bad.
I’m done. Guns wreck civil society. There’s no justification for allowing some asshole who has doubts about his sexual prowess to make life/death decisions whenever and wherever they want. Etc.
And note what I’m reading as a pretty damn clear signal in the quote-fragment above. Californians who are not sworn LEOs or members of the armed forces need “homeland defense equipment”?
That’s coup talk.
Fuck these vicious assholes. The state of gun jurisprudence since Haller is a murder-suicide pact and we have to get rid of it.
That’s all I got.
Open thread.
Image: Duccio di Buoninsegna, Slaughter of the Innocents, between 1308 and 1311.
rikyrah
Like a Swiss Army Knife?
PHUCK OUTTA HERE ?
dopey-o
The Tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of Innocents?
I never signed up for that.
Bill K
I’m sure the judge has a big gun collection, and he goes home every night and caresses them. That’s the only explanation I have for some of the nutty stuff he put in his opinion.
Cermet
Maybe one of his guns will go off “accidently” and he will be found dead; Darwen would be most happy.
debbie
The state AG has 30 days to appeal. Hope he gets busy soon.
Omnes Omnibus
FWIW the judge stayed his order pending appeal and the 9th Circuit will overturn the decision. He clearly is nuts but this isn’t going to change any laws anywhere.
WaterGirl
@Omnes Omnibus: Do judges have to take some kind of oath when they are made a judge, to, you know, not pull rulings out of their behind? Promise to make rulings that are in line with the law? To not make shit up because of their political beliefs?
Joe Falco
Chalk up another consequence of the Supreme Court endorsed 2000 presidential election theft. Bush v Gore should be considered a day that will live in infamy for our republic.
Tom Levenson
@Omnes Omnibus: Your lips to appellate deity’s ear.
Cheryl Rofer
Thanks, Tom. Well said.
Raoul Paste
You know, a Swiss Army knife isn’t much of a home defensive weapon
feebog
@Omnes Omnibus:
There is no question the 9th circuit will overturn. The question is whether it then is appealed and then taken up by SCOTUS. Odds are not as good there.
trnc
@Omnes Omnibus:
Yup, if for no other reason than stating in the ruling that “some other states” allow these guns.
Enhanced Voting Techniques
We had a ban on assault rifles?
TomatoQueen
@Enhanced Voting Techniques: A long time ago when the Earth was warm, yes we did, and it worked well, and its demise can be blamed on Newtie and the Blowhards.
sab
My husband, being an urban Catholic school boy, knows a lot of cops. Most of them are his age (70) and long since retired. These guys started during or right after the late sixties riots. They have all worked their whole lives in urban policing. Hardly any of them have ever fired a gun in the line of duty. Some of them were street patrol cops. Others were detectives. Others worked undercover drugs.
None of them think the level of gun violence lately is normal or safe.
Cheryl Rofer
Here’s a detailed analysis of the decision. Looks to me like several places for appeal, but IANAL.
Mike in NC
Asshole activist judges!
Omnes Omnibus
@WaterGirl: There isn’t some Platonic ideal of the law out there that is just waiting to be discovered. All lawyers and all judges are interpreting vague words. And all, not matter how hard they try, bring their own prejudices and experiences into their decision-making. We even consider some of that to be a good thing – hence the interest in diversity on the bench. This guy is a kook, but I would bet that no real harm comes of this decision.
Omnes Omnibus
@Cheryl Rofer: An notice of appeal will be filed no later than Monday morning.
Tom Levenson
@Cheryl Rofer: Thanks Cheryl.
I’ve instituted a Shabbat tradition that also really helps my mental health: no Twitter from Friday sundown to Saturday sundown. I appreciate you covering for me…;-)
Dan B
@Cheryl Rofer: Volsky’s argument seems to be that Swiss Army knives are less likely to be used in mass murders.
Or did I get that backwards?
Raoul Paste
So this likely gets overturned, and rightly so . But you just have to wonder what’s going to happen to Texas if it becomes Gun Chaos Central
You probably saw the recent story about a family out on a bike ride in Huston, where the mother shot at an an approaching dog and shot her five-year-old in the stomach instead (the kid is going to be okay )
Who the heck brings a handgun along on a bike ride?
chopper
i’m sure mr. “if other states do it all states have to” also fancies himself a ‘federalist’
RSA
@Raoul Paste: My thought exactly.
Huh. Some of our federal judges are not great at writing or logic.
Ksmiami
I’ll be happy when he faces the end of an AR… after all, judges don’t really have divisions at the ready…
Seriously
As the court decision correctly noted, more people are killed by knives in the US than by “assault weapons.”
The push to ban assault weapons is illogical and silly. It’s driven by hatred and emotion. As in ” There’s no justification for allowing some asshole who has doubts about his sexual prowess to make life/death decisions whenever and wherever they want.” This is the kind of absurdist reductive thinking you find among anti-abortion zealots who claims that “women who get abortions hate children.”
The simple fact is that “assault weapons” are a comparatively trivial cause of deaths in the US every year. That’s just reality. Deal with it. And, please spare me the “But, but, but, you wouldn’t be saying that if your sweet little child got his head blown off in preschool.” Unfiltered emotion is not a valid basis for making public policy.
There are plenty of things that can be done to reduce deaths caused by firearms such as training programs, handing out gun locks, advocating (or even legislating) safe storage requirements. Those things work.
But instead of taking concrete steps that actually make a difference, the gun control morons in this country expend vast amount of political capital advocating legislation about cosmetic appearance of firearms that has, basically, zero effect on reducing deaths. What a joke.
Despite the fact that there are 300 million plus firearms in this country and despite the fact that concealed carry has expanded to almost every state in the past 20 years, the murder rate is a fraction of what it was decades ago. That ain’t because of gun control.
Here’s and idea, try understanding reality and then let that guide your opinions as opposed to “Wah, wah, wah, gun people have short penises.”
Omnes Omnibus
@Ksmiami: Your blood lust post are rather tiresome. If you really want the violence you keep calling for, you are a ghoul. If you don’t, then you’re a bit of a poseur, aren’t you?
orsonk
Thank you for expressing exactly how I feel. So angry that a judge can do this!
Baud
@Seriously:
Nah, we’re good on this. But thanks for your help.
Good point. It’s not just gun people.
JMG
George Soros or some other left-leaning billionaire can reverse this ruling in a second. Just announce he or she is buying an AR-15 for every non-white male in California. Supreme Court would meet at 3 am to reverse it.
sab
I am so old that, as a girl, I had NRA safety training when at summer camp.
I cannot even watch old cowboy TV shows ( or Outlander.) They have absolutely no muzzle awareness. They point that gun at everyone, even when they are just talking among friends.
Omnes Omnibus
@Seriously:
What harm does the ban cause? It keeps some weapons for which there is is no sensible civilian use off the streets. Trigger locks and other measures are also good ideas. Let’s see how many gun nuts approve legislation mandating those things. If you are a “responsible gun owner,” you should get your people to support those things, otherwise it will get harder and harder convince people that you want safe and responsible use and easier and easier for people to say “fuck it, ban them all.”
Tehanu
Uh … evidence? “Comparatively” — compared to what? And yes, you should talk differently if someone you care about gets their head blown off … so I guess there’s nobody you actually care about. I for one am fkg sick and tired of being told to “understand” why this country is the only one where crowds of children get murdered and the reaction is “that’s trivial, we should allow more gun sales.”
Omnes Omnibus
@orsonk: Your expectations of judges are far too high.
PenAndKey
@Seriously: Oh, this should be good. You’re new here, aren’t you?
Delk
Well there was that episode of “Cooking with Cruz” that showed how to make bacon with an assault weapon.
sab
@WaterGirl: They swear to uphold the Constitution, but Federalist Society guys don’t know which Constitution. They think it’s the Federalist Society Mission Statement. Not the sharpest knives in the legal drawer
I am talking the honest ones. Some of the other knives are quite sharp.
Goku (aka Amerikan Baka)
@Seriously:
Thanks for the condescending BS, commenter I’ve never seen before. Try telling that to the families of victims killed in the mass shootings using automatic weapons, like in Newtown or Parkland. I’m sure they’ll understand your high minded logic. And do you honestly think the gun nuts actually want to enact the suggestions you mention?
People in other developed, industrialized countries don’t have to deal with worrying about being potentially killed every day
MagdaInBlack
@PenAndKey: ? Yes indeed on both
Omnes Omnibus
@MagdaInBlack: I am pretty sure it is one of our long time guntrolls. Just not sure which one yet.
Geminid
I would disagree with Mr. Levenson on the state of gun safety jurisprudence since the Heller decision. Justice Scalia’s opinion did affirm an individual right to possess firearms, but he cited historical precedent that affirmed that governments have the power to reasonably regulate firearms sales and possession. Most gun safety legislation passed since Heller, including Connecticut’s assault weapons ban, have passed judicial review. The radicals in the present Supreme Court may uphold this California federal judge’s opinion, but they will have to break with Scalia’s Heller precedent to do so.
sab
Bush family can say whatever they want, but their judicial appointments are their legacy. That is who they are.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@sab: Susan Collins was invited to Walker’s Point so Jeb and Shrub could lobby for Kavanaugh. They have no problem with RW judges being their legacy.
I just wonder if that’s the first time she’s been there, and how much something like that means to that jumped-up mediocrity
zhena gogolia
@PenAndKey:
This person has been here under another nym in the past. Can’t remember what the nym was, but the rhetoric is identical.
Goku (aka Amerikan Baka)
@zhena gogolia:
@Omnes Omnibus:
I’m guessing Amarthine (probably screwed up the spelling) RBG
Professor Bigfoot
Tulsa, 1921.
Rosewood, 1923.
The moment— the very moment— they’re taken away from these trump-sucking, boot-licking white supremacist “conservatives,” I’ll happily give up mine.
‘Til then… ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Kent
Issue hundreds of AR-15s to BLM protesters to “Constitutional Carry” in the next big march in a southern state?
Hah, that would scare some white folks. Especially if they routed their marches through some rich white neighborhoods like those in MO where that crazy white couple decided to stand their ground.
mrmoshpotato
Where’re the bottle and can openers, and the corkscrew on these murder machines?
Fuck this guy.
sab
@Professor Bigfoot: Akron burned stuff up about 1901. 1920’s wasn’t some weird aberration. This was who we had always been. And I am speaking as a very white midwesterner with roots back about 7 generations. This is who we had always been.
Omnes Omnibus
@Kent: That’s brave of you. Asking BLM protesters to volunteer to get shot.
mrmoshpotato
@Kent:
There was no “stand your ground” with those two assholes. The protestors were peacefully walking past their house. They were (are) just gun-humping, paranoid shitforbrains.
West of the Cascades
@feebog: Don’t be so sure the 9th will reverse this. The current breakdown of active circuit judges by presidential appointment is 16 by Democrats (9 Clinton, 7 Obama) and 13 by Republicans (3 GWB, 10 Trump). Add in 11 senior judges appointed by Republican presidents (vs. 7 appointed by Democrats), and the chance of drawing a three-judge panel that has two judges appointed by a Republican is roughly 50-50.
And whatever that panel decides could get reviewed in turn by an en banc panel that includes the Chief Judge (Sidney Thomas, a Clinton appointee) and 10 of the active judges chosen at random … which with some bad luck could include seven or eight Republican appointees.
Trump succeeded in really stacking the 9th with his appointees, which is scary for practitioners in the West these days.
Ruckus
I am going to repost what I wrote in Adam’s post yesterday.
HinTN
@JMG: Exactly what drove Saint Ronnie, when he was governator, to decide gun control was a fine idea: Black Panthers legally openly carrying!
Anotherlurker
@Seriously: If you knew anything about guns, you would know that an assault rifle with a massive clip (triggering you yet, Spunky?) is a shit choice for home defense. If you fire an AR or similar weapon in your house, you stand a good chance of firing right thru the walls and into your neighbor’s Double Wide.
A better choice of home defense weapon is a shotgun. I’m partial to a .410. Effective and it won’t pass thru the walls of your mobil home
And with that, I’m done feeding the
assholetroll.Pied.
Ksmiami
@Omnes Omnibus: not bloodlust just good at gaming out scenarios. Rather be ahead of the planning than shocked by events
Omnes Omnibus
@Ksmiami: Are you wearing your black beret and cammo face paint as you post?
motopilot
With so much “homeland defense equipment” already out in the general population now, does that mean we can start cutting back on DoD budgets?
Ksmiami
@Omnes Omnibus: in the future perhaps…
Percysowner
@JMG: Yep. That’s what got at least one gun control measure passed. People suddenly heard that the Black Panthers were “stockpiling” (if they had been white it would have been called collecting) guns and all the white people who were pro-gun suddenly got antsy, for some reason.
A Ghost to Most
Guns are the How. The Why is the compelling question. His Why is christian supremacy.
Ruckus
@zhena gogolia:
I believe he’s been here under this name as well. And gun humpers are going to have similar talking points, as they all think that the world is trying to kill them, and they have teeny, tiny dicks. And I’m sticking with that till they can prove otherwise.
How many towns in the old west banned the carrying of guns? I’d bet it was quite a few of them. That was any gun. And people used guns then for hunting and actual animal control. But the only reason they needed to carry them in town or at a bar was to kill someone. And it’s no different today.
BruceJ
@Raoul Paste: You would be surprised how easy it is to disarm a putative invader with a freshly opened bottle of wine or beer :-)
laura
@Seriously: Fuck you. Fuck your guns and fuck you.
BruceJ
@Geminid: Precedent, schmecedent. The current Supreme Court has clearly shown that they only care about precedent so long as it suits their agenda. See Shelby County v Holder, where they MADE UP shit that exists neither in law, the Constitution or legal precedent.
Ruckus
@laura:
I like your style.
I prefer to not interact with small dick morons, they are too unpredictable and ignorant.
Gin & Tonic
@zhena gogolia: Yup. He ( cause you know it’s a he) has some bat signal that goes up when guns are the subject here.
FelonyGovt
Mmmm delicious pie!
Geminid
@BruceJ: Well, you can assume that this court will overrule Heller of you want. They have had the chance already, and they certainly will have another opportunity this term, with a new Justice. But I’ll believe it when I see it. Roberts and Gorsuch have swung with the three liberals before, and if I had to bet money I’d put it on those two voting to uphold Heller and California’s assault weapons ban.
Omnes Omnibus
@Geminid: My guess is that the Court doesn’t take up the case.
Geminid
@Omnes Omnibus: Regardless of how the 9th Circuit decides?
Omnes Omnibus
@Geminid: 9th reverses. Supremes let it sit.
HarlequinGnoll
@Seriously: maybe if someone invented a knife that can stab 60-90 times a second from a distance of 50 yards? There’s a difference between multiple people makingin wage and a CEO giant.
Goku (aka Amerikan Baka)
@Omnes Omnibus:
Based on West of the Rockies’ comment, I’m more concerned about two R judges getting on a three judge panel to hear the case. The 9th circuit has had a lot of Trump appointees put on it, so the odds aren’t great. What’s the next step after the 9th if this happens?
Omnes Omnibus
@Goku (aka Amerikan Baka): Just because two Republican appointed judge end up on the panel does not mean that the decision will be upheld.
Geminid
@Omnes Omnibus: I think you are right. The S.C. has accepted a case regarding New York’s carry law this term, I believe, but it does not seem likely to me that they will strike the state law down. If they do, they’ll open up challenges to a couple hundred laws in dozens of states. I think Roberts knows better than that, and Gorsuch will follow his lead on this issue.
trollhattan
@Seriously:
Yo, Stephen Paddock’s corpse, why aren’t you out skinning house cats?
Professor Bigfoot
@sab:
Ayup. Thus my gun-buying and training spree in 2017.
Another Scott
@West of the Cascades: You mention “senior status”.
FJC.gov:
(Emphasis added.)
In previous discussions about reforming the federal courts, some have (as I understood it) mentioned Senior Status as being a kind of “working retirement” where the judge in question helps out with routine/minor/less controversial cases.
It looks like a judge in senior status can still work full time (depending on the circumstances).
Someone semi-retired shouldn’t be in a position of making rulings like this, IMHO.
Yet another reason to reform the federal courts.
Fight for 15!!1 (on the SCOTUS)
Cheers,
Scott.
West of the Cascades
@Omnes Omnibus: But it sure makes it more likely.
randy khan
@Geminid:
This is my cue to remind everyone that Justice Scalia, always *so concerned* about what the drafters of the Constitution meant and understood during their time, used at least one example of the kind of thing only the government ever owned that was utterly incorrect – it’s likely that before the Revolution, and maybe even afterwards, there were more cannon in private hands than in the hands of the government (and even if I’m wrong about the specific numbers, they absolutely were owned by private citizens who owned ships). In other words, as usual, he made up the history to serve his pre-determined result. (In this case, he did it to reassure people that the 2nd Amendment, despite having no actual words to support this reading, was intended to cover only “personal” weapons and, of course, any kind of weapon that might have evolved from those weapons, as allowing people own artillery and tanks probably would have been upsetting even to Republican politicians at the time.)
Lapassionara
@Goku (aka Amerikan Baka):
en banc review
Another Scott
@Omnes Omnibus: A march like that happened in Stone Mountain, GA in July 2020.
It would probably get more attention if it were more than a one-off thing. But not necessarily good attention.
:-/
Cheers,
Scott.
Shakti
So basically we’re living in this Key & Peele skit now? https://youtu.be/BDZ6ujYN610
The Moar You Know
@Kent: We do not have the right to ask people of color to die for our policy goals. And they would all die, every last one, participating in something that stupid.
Another Scott
@randy khan: If Scalia were interested in presenting an honest history he could have visited Colonial Williamsburg (just a couple of hours or so down the road from DC) before writing Heller. Or read about the Magazine:
(repost)
tl;dr – Defense of the colony was an organized undertaking and weapons were locked up in a central facility. Farmer James wasn’t bringing his personal AR-15 to fight off the natives.
Indeed, as you say, as messed up as Heller is, even Scalia recognized that there’s nothing unconstitutional about regulating weapons of war. (Last I looked, pool cues have killed more Americans in the US than flamethrowers, but that doesn’t mean anyone can have a flamethrower…)
Thanks.
Cheers,
Scott.
persistentillusion
@PenAndKey: Yup. I don’t comment often, but I have read this almost top 10,000 blog for years . I recall other sudden influxes of trolls.
Another Scott
@Shakti: :-)
Thanks.
Cheers,
Scott.
Omnes Omnibus
@West of the Cascades: Sure. But that doesn’t mean probable.
Other MJS
So the AR-15 is a floor wax and a dessert topping?
lige
Guns are dangerous toys pure and simple any purported uses people have for them are just entertainment (hunting, target shooting) or deranged juvenile power fantasies that one needs a gun for personal protection. No one needs them.
Mary G
@Enhanced Voting Techniques: Started in 1994, but had to be renewed in 10 years and that didn’t get done.
Bruce K in ATH-GR
Argh. I was stupid enough to make a tweet without a hashtag, stating that while a Swiss Army knife has many uses, the sole purpose of an AR-15 (or other military weapon) is to kill people. Some troll came up and got sarcastic about “good thing bullets don’t kill animals; imagine using guns to hunt?”
Was I inaccurate to respond (before blocking the troll) that there are firearms far better suited to hunting animals than military weapons?
(To be fair, the military rifle I was issued when I was conscripted was a G3, not an AR-15 style rifle, but the same principle applies. I figure it gives me enough personal experience to speak to the topic.)
Bruce K in ATH-GR
@lige: There are some limited use cases for firearms, especially in rural areas with aggressive wildlife, or when used by well-regulated militaries, but unrestricted private ownership of weapons of war is a recipe for disaster.
(No, Mr. Heinlein, an armed society is not a polite society; it is a society at the mercy of the least stable person with a firearm.)
Berliner2
The Swiss army knife is a glorified household appliance for boys playing soldiers in the woods. I know. I served in the Swiss army. Part of my training was learn to how to operate AR-15 style weaponery. Those two are not remotely comparable.
Uncle Cosmo
The minute someone like me, who lives alone, brings home a “home defense weapon” like a Glock or an AR-15, it becomes the most valuable item in the house. If I don’t carry it on me, the weapon makes the house a prime target for burglary. If I do carry it, I become a prime target for a surprise mugging.
FWIW a libertarian friend once suggested that in my situation the best “home defense weapon” is a pump shotgun with the shortest barrel allowed by law. Nearly impossible to conceal, so virtually worthless to a putative mugger; minimal training required, easy to wield, no difficulty aiming, no way for a potential target to tell if it’s loaded with lethal shells or salt shot. (My friend noted that the mere sound of a shotgun pump from upstairs – possibly accompanied by the redundant I have a loaded gun – may persuade breakers-and-enterers to retreat.)
brantl
@Bruce K in ATH-GR: Heinlein wrote some great science fiction, his poli-sci slant was no better than the average 8-year-old’s.
way2blue
Please tell me his ruling will be appealed. And heard by a judge (judges?) with common sense.
senyordave
@brantl: I think more like many 12 year old boys. Simplistic and misogynistic.
LongHairedWeirdo
The thing that really pisses me off these days is, everyone knows an AR-15 is a *terrible* weapon for self defense, because of over-penetration. When defending yourself, especially in an urban setting, you want a round that has minimal penetration, but has maximum stopping power. An AR-15 does *not* fire such a round. A 12 gauge? Sure! A .357/.44 magnum, or .45 ACP? You bet! A 9mm? Eh, over-penetration is starting to be a risk, and stopping power is “good enough, mostly”
And the problem is, this is not me failing to appreciate the gun nuts current love of the AR-15. It’s a nice gun, it does a huge amount of work for the shooter, and doesn’t require truly learning and loving the gun to be really good with it. But tactically, self defense is at a maximum range of about 50 feet, and *at* 50 feet, you probably don’t have a legal right to use lethal force – unless there’s incoming fire, how do you know a person 50 feet away is a danger to you?
This is why I find it completely *appalling* that people are trying to make Rittenhouse out to be a hero. If you’re in defense of *property*, especially, you have no need for the ability to fire at tens of yards, and a rifle can be a weakness in sufficiently close quarters… unless you’re willing to kill to retain possession. Oh, but they have to make him a hero, because he carried a gun that means “hero” to the gun nuts – just read the judges commentary to grok how he is (metaphorically) willing to be AR-15ed up the tailpipe.
Another Scott
@LongHairedWeirdo: Excellent points.
Adam makes the point that if someone is determined to get you, and are within (what?) 25 feet of you, then even if you’ve got a gun handy, it won’t do you much good. (Insert ScreamingHulk.gif) How many homes have 25 (or 50) feet of clear sight-lines? Maybe a hallway, at most?
Gun are for intimidating and killing people out in the open. Not for “home defense”.
Some actual numbers (from 1998):
(Emphasis added)
10/626 = 1.6% were “home defense” by residents
(54+118+438)/626 = 610/626 = 97.4% were “accidents” + attempted suicide + assault + homicide.
Grr…
Cheers,
Scott.
Pat Hines
@Seriously:
Well said, sir. Judge Benitez ruling is in accordance with the Second Amendment of the US constitution as written.
It appears that the comparison of the versatility and numerous functional enhancements available for the AR rifles with the versatile Swiss Army knife is lost on the communists posting here. What a shame.
Last, it’s unlikely that the 9th Circuit will overturn Judge Benitez ruling, they upheld his magazine ban ruling.