Author Topic: Gun Control  (Read 42045 times)

Skeletor

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 13307
  • Silence you furry fool!
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #200 on: March 23, 2021, 05:12:14 PM »
Biden considering gun control executive orders, Psaki says

President Biden is considering possible executive orders on gun control after the mass shooting that killed 10 in Boulder, Colorado, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Tuesday.

“We are considering a range of levers, including working through legislation, including executive action,” Psaki told reporters aboard Air Force One during a flight to Ohio.

Psaki said “he as vice president was leading the effort on determining executive actions that could be taken on gun safety measures, it’s something that he has worked on, he’s passionate about, he feels personally connected to. But there’s an ongoing process and I think we feel we have to work on multiple channels at the same time.”

https://nypost.com/2021/03/23/biden-considering-gun-control-executive-orders-psaki-says/

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 59685
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #201 on: March 23, 2021, 07:40:19 PM »
Biden considering gun control executive orders, Psaki says

President Biden is considering possible executive orders on gun control after the mass shooting that killed 10 in Boulder, Colorado, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Tuesday.

“We are considering a range of levers, including working through legislation, including executive action,” Psaki told reporters aboard Air Force One during a flight to Ohio.

Psaki said “he as vice president was leading the effort on determining executive actions that could be taken on gun safety measures, it’s something that he has worked on, he’s passionate about, he feels personally connected to. But there’s an ongoing process and I think we feel we have to work on multiple channels at the same time.”

https://nypost.com/2021/03/23/biden-considering-gun-control-executive-orders-psaki-says/

Never let a crisis go to waste.  Unconstitutional executive order coming soon. 

TheGrinch

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4507
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #202 on: March 24, 2021, 12:55:41 PM »
Never let a crisis go to waste.  Unconstitutional executive order coming soon.

were there any false flag nonsense things during Trumps term? I don't remember any and we've already had to "mass shootings" in the first couple months under PEDO for POTUs

Coach is Back!

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 54838
  • It’s All Bullshit
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #203 on: March 24, 2021, 04:44:27 PM »
Biden Calls for a Ban on ‘Assault Weapons’ and ‘High Capacity’ Magazines After Colorado Shooting

https://link.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/democrats-push-for-gun-control-following-colorado-shooting_3745756.html


chaos

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 54367
  • Ron "There is no freedom of speech here" Avidan
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #204 on: March 24, 2021, 06:52:09 PM »
Biden Calls for a Ban on ‘Assault Weapons’ and ‘High Capacity’ Magazines After Colorado Shooting

https://link.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/democrats-push-for-gun-control-following-colorado-shooting_3745756.html
Bitems first gun ban didn't work either. ::)
Liar!!!!Filt!!!!

Moontrane

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4701
  • a Harris administration, together with Joe Biden
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #205 on: March 24, 2021, 06:59:22 PM »
Biden Calls for a Ban on ‘Assault Weapons’ and ‘High Capacity’ Magazines After Colorado Shooting

https://link.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/democrats-push-for-gun-control-following-colorado-shooting_3745756.html

Turns out the Colorado shooter used a Ruger SR-556 pistol.  No semiautomatic rifles were injured during the shootings.

Never allow a crisis to go to waste, real or imagined.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 59685
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #206 on: March 24, 2021, 10:03:54 PM »
Turns out the Colorado shooter used a Ruger SR-556 pistol.  No semiautomatic rifles were injured during the shootings.

Never allow a crisis to go to waste, real or imagined.

One of the things that is so intellectually dishonest about trying to ban "assault rifles" is the overwhelming majority of firearm-related murders, including mass murders, are committed with handguns.  But no one on the left has the stones to say what they really want to do (ban all firearms).  I think it was a retired Supreme Court Justice who wrote an editorial some years back saying he wanted to ban handguns?  Other than him, these people are all dishonest. 

Skeletor

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 13307
  • Silence you furry fool!
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #207 on: March 24, 2021, 11:15:27 PM »
Ninth Circus strikes again.

Ninth Circuit Goes Back to English Law in the Middle Ages, Says Pre-U.S. Law in Hawaii Allows State’s Open Carry Restrictions

A federal court denied a challenge to Hawaii’s prohibition on the open carry of firearms in a lengthy and scholarly opinion released Wednesday — finding that Hawaiian law and practice both predate and supersede a broad application of the Second Amendment.

“Hawai‘i law began limiting public carriage of dangerous weapons, including firearms, more than 150 years ago — nearly fifty years before it became a U.S. territory and more than a century before it became a state,” the opinion explains in language foreshadowing the method of inquiry and eventual ruling in favor of anti-gun regulation.

Sitting en banc, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled 7-4 against George Young, who was twice denied an open carry permit in 2011. The massive, 215-page opinion was authored by George W. Bush-appointed Circuit Judge Jay Bybee. Two dissents were authored by a collection of judges appointed by former presidents Ronald Reagan, Bush, and Donald Trump.

The court spends nearly 50 pages discussing the time-honored regulation of weapons under the law. This section starts in Middle Age England and ends in the Post-Reconstruction United States.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ninth-circuit-goes-back-to-english-law-in-the-middle-ages-says-pre-u-s-law-in-hawaii-allows-state-s-open-carry-restrictions/ar-BB1eVqxA

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31244
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #208 on: March 25, 2021, 05:55:13 AM »

chaos

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 54367
  • Ron "There is no freedom of speech here" Avidan
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #209 on: March 25, 2021, 03:35:31 PM »
Gun control turns innocent people into victims. Check your 1994-2004 stats, there's a reason Bitems "assault weapon" (wtf is that? ::) ) ban wasn't renewed.
Liar!!!!Filt!!!!

Skeletor

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 13307
  • Silence you furry fool!
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #210 on: April 08, 2021, 08:34:32 AM »
This is the guy Biden is nominating as head of ATF.

A retired ATF agent, he is, among other things, a "senior policy adviser" at "Giffords Courage to Fight Gun Violence".

Article from 2018:

Retired ATF agent says AR-15 rifles should be regulated like machine guns

David Chipman, a retired Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) agent, on Monday said AR-15 rifles should be regulated like machine guns.

"What I support is treating them just like machine guns," Chipman, who is now a senior policy adviser at Giffords: Courage to Fight Gun Violence, told Hill.TV's Buck Sexton and Krystal Ball on "Rising."

"To me, if you want to have a weapon of war, the same gun that was issued to me as a member of [the] ATF SWAT team, it makes sense that you would have to pass a background check, the gun would have to be in your name, and there would be a picture and fingerprints on file," he continued.

"To me, I don't mind doing it if I want to buy a gun. These policies just protect the criminal. Like, I don't think you should be able to anonymously purchase 20 AR-15s at one time, and the government shouldn't know," he said. "I don't think it's unreasonable at all that you have to pass a background check to own a weapon of war."

The AR-15 is not currently classified as an assault weapon, otherwise known as a machine gun.

The National Firearms Act put strict guidelines in place for machine gun manufacturers and require that owners register their weapons.

In order to purchase and own a machine gun, owners must go through background checks and allow the federal government to conduct searches.

https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/413619-retired-atf-agent-says-ar-15-rifles-should-be-regulated-like-machine-guns


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31244
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #211 on: April 08, 2021, 08:41:03 AM »
This is the guy Biden is nominating as head of ATF.

A retired ATF agent, he is, among other things, a "senior policy adviser" at "Giffords Courage to Fight Gun Violence".

Article from 2018:

Retired ATF agent says AR-15 rifles should be regulated like machine guns

David Chipman, a retired Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) agent, on Monday said AR-15 rifles should be regulated like machine guns.

"What I support is treating them just like machine guns," Chipman, who is now a senior policy adviser at Giffords: Courage to Fight Gun Violence, told Hill.TV's Buck Sexton and Krystal Ball on "Rising."

"To me, if you want to have a weapon of war, the same gun that was issued to me as a member of [the] ATF SWAT team, it makes sense that you would have to pass a background check, the gun would have to be in your name, and there would be a picture and fingerprints on file," he continued.

"To me, I don't mind doing it if I want to buy a gun. These policies just protect the criminal. Like, I don't think you should be able to anonymously purchase 20 AR-15s at one time, and the government shouldn't know," he said. "I don't think it's unreasonable at all that you have to pass a background check to own a weapon of war."

The AR-15 is not currently classified as an assault weapon, otherwise known as a machine gun.

The National Firearms Act put strict guidelines in place for machine gun manufacturers and require that owners register their weapons.

In order to purchase and own a machine gun, owners must go through background checks and allow the federal government to conduct searches.

https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/413619-retired-atf-agent-says-ar-15-rifles-should-be-regulated-like-machine-guns

Did this douchebag never hear of the NICS system?

Skeletor

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 13307
  • Silence you furry fool!
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #212 on: April 12, 2021, 12:43:32 PM »
Indiana Constitutional Carry Bill Killed Due to Police Police Orgs’ Opposition

State Rep. Ben Smaltz, R-Auburn, is puzzling over the failure of his gun-rights bill in the Indiana Senate this week.

Smaltz’s “lawful carry” bill sought to allow law-abiding Hoosier adults to carry handguns without the need to obtain state permits.
It passed the Indiana House of Representatives by a 65-31 vote on Feb. 22.
 
Twenty-one of the 50 state senators had signed as co-sponsors of the bill, including both state senators who represent DeKalb County, Sue Glick, R-LaGrange, and Dennis Kruse, R-Auburn.

His bill almost certainly would have passed in the Senate if it had been allowed to come to a vote, Smaltz said Friday.

Instead, two Senate leaders of Smaltz’s own Republican Party blocked the bill by refusing to give it a committee hearing.

Smaltz called the outcome “very disappointing.” He added, “The support was there. … Despite what was really trying to be done for the lawful good guy, decisions were made contrary to that.”

Senate President Pro Tem Rodric Bray halted the bill because of opposition from the Indiana State Police superintendent, the state police chiefs association and the Indiana Fraternal Order of Police, he told the Associated Press.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/indiana-constitutional-carry-killed-due-to-police-police-orgs-opposition/

Moontrane

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4701
  • a Harris administration, together with Joe Biden
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #213 on: April 12, 2021, 05:45:40 PM »
This is the guy Biden is nominating as head of ATF.

A retired ATF agent, he is, among other things, a "senior policy adviser" at "Giffords Courage to Fight Gun Violence".

Article from 2018:

Retired ATF agent says AR-15 rifles should be regulated like machine guns

David Chipman, a retired Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) agent, on Monday said AR-15 rifles should be regulated like machine guns.

"What I support is treating them just like machine guns," Chipman, who is now a senior policy adviser at Giffords: Courage to Fight Gun Violence, told Hill.TV's Buck Sexton and Krystal Ball on "Rising."

"To me, if you want to have a weapon of war, the same gun that was issued to me as a member of [the] ATF SWAT team, it makes sense that you would have to pass a background check, the gun would have to be in your name, and there would be a picture and fingerprints on file," he continued.

"To me, I don't mind doing it if I want to buy a gun. These policies just protect the criminal. Like, I don't think you should be able to anonymously purchase 20 AR-15s at one time, and the government shouldn't know," he said. "I don't think it's unreasonable at all that you have to pass a background check to own a weapon of war."

The AR-15 is not currently classified as an assault weapon, otherwise known as a machine gun.

The National Firearms Act put strict guidelines in place for machine gun manufacturers and require that owners register their weapons.

In order to purchase and own a machine gun, owners must go through background checks and allow the federal government to conduct searches.

https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/413619-retired-atf-agent-says-ar-15-rifles-should-be-regulated-like-machine-guns

Sloppy writing:

"The AR-15 is not currently classified as an assault weapon, otherwise known as a machine gun." 

The weapon of war (machine gun) is the "assault rifle."

Coach is Back!

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 54838
  • It’s All Bullshit
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #214 on: April 12, 2021, 06:05:31 PM »
Where are the liberals on this...they voted for this now they don’t want to come here to defend their boys agenda?

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #215 on: April 12, 2021, 06:13:25 PM »
Where are the liberals on this...they voted for this now they don’t want to come here to defend their boys agenda?

I'm all for it

satisfied


chaos

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 54367
  • Ron "There is no freedom of speech here" Avidan
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #216 on: April 13, 2021, 03:57:27 PM »
Liar!!!!Filt!!!!

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31244
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #217 on: April 13, 2021, 04:07:52 PM »
I'm all for it

satisfied

You don’t have to post how it feels with an Michelle Obama up your ass.    Nasty. 


Skeletor

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 13307
  • Silence you furry fool!
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #218 on: April 20, 2021, 12:23:26 PM »
Ohio bill would ‘null’ and ‘void’ gun laws, court rulings that lawmakers oppose

14 House Republicans signed onto legislation that would allow the state of Ohio to nix federal gun laws and court rulings that legislators deem to violate of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

House Bill 62 would declare any federal law, executive order, administrative action, or court ruling to be “null, void, and of no effect in this state” if it infringes upon the Second Amendment.

Legal acts that would qualify as infringements under the bill (the “Second Amendment Safe Haven Act”) include any of the following if they could “reasonably be expected to create a chilling effect.”

  • Any tax on guns, gun parts, or ammunition not common to other goods and services
  • Any registering or tracking of guns
  • Any registering or tracking of gun owners
  • Any act forbidding the possession, ownership, use or transfer of guns or ammo by law-abiding citizens
  • Any act ordering the confiscation of guns

The bill also prohibits law enforcement from enforcing any federal laws, court rulings, or orders that would qualify as infringements under the bill. If they do, they “shall be liable to the injured party in an action at law.”

It would prohibit a defense known as “qualified immunity,” which state employees claim as a defense for carrying out their official job duties.


https://www.10tv.com/article/news/politics/ohio-bill-would-null-and-void-gun-laws-court-rulings-that-lawmakers-oppose/530-b5f2690f-acba-4fad-9108-efc4e87637c8

TheGrinch

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4507
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #219 on: April 20, 2021, 05:59:16 PM »
Ohio bill would ‘null’ and ‘void’ gun laws, court rulings that lawmakers oppose

14 House Republicans signed onto legislation that would allow the state of Ohio to nix federal gun laws and court rulings that legislators deem to violate of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

House Bill 62 would declare any federal law, executive order, administrative action, or court ruling to be “null, void, and of no effect in this state” if it infringes upon the Second Amendment.

Legal acts that would qualify as infringements under the bill (the “Second Amendment Safe Haven Act”) include any of the following if they could “reasonably be expected to create a chilling effect.”

  • Any tax on guns, gun parts, or ammunition not common to other goods and services
  • Any registering or tracking of guns
  • Any registering or tracking of gun owners
  • Any act forbidding the possession, ownership, use or transfer of guns or ammo by law-abiding citizens
  • Any act ordering the confiscation of guns

The bill also prohibits law enforcement from enforcing any federal laws, court rulings, or orders that would qualify as infringements under the bill. If they do, they “shall be liable to the injured party in an action at law.”

It would prohibit a defense known as “qualified immunity,” which state employees claim as a defense for carrying out their official job duties.


https://www.10tv.com/article/news/politics/ohio-bill-would-null-and-void-gun-laws-court-rulings-that-lawmakers-oppose/530-b5f2690f-acba-4fad-9108-efc4e87637c8

well.... 2A does include the words "free state".... so I'd read it like states rights imo

Skeletor

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 13307
  • Silence you furry fool!
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #220 on: May 17, 2021, 02:00:03 PM »
Supreme Court Blocks Police From Entering Homes Without A Warrant For ‘Caretaking’—Siding Against Biden, Law Enforcement

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that law enforcement cannot legally enter homes without a warrant even in cases where doing so may benefit the public interest, striking down the suggestion from law enforcement and the Biden administration that doing so under a “community caretaking” exception would be justified.

The case, Caniglia v. Strom, considered whether police acted lawfully by entering a man’s home and removing his firearms without a warrant after he had expressed thoughts of suicide and was taken to the hospital for a psychiatric evaluation.

Police entered the home under a “community caretaking” exception that allows entry in cases where doing so benefits the public interest, which has traditionally applied to incidents regarding vehicles but not in homes.

That exception had been favored by the law enforcement in the case and also the Biden administration, whose Justice Department said in an amicus brief that police should be able to enter homes without a warrant in cases that are “objectively grounded in a non-investigatory public interest, such as health or safety.”

The court ruled that the exception could not be extended to the home without violating the Fourth Amendment, overturning two lower courts that sided with the police officers and their argument that the amendment “does not prohibit law enforcement officers from diffusing a volatile situation in a home to protect the residents or others.”

“What is reasonable for vehicles is different from what is reasonable for homes,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his opinion for the court, noting that the previous standard that allowed the “community caretaking” exception was not “a standalone doctrine that justifies warrantless searches and seizures in the home.”

The court’s decision does not affect police officers’ ability to take “reasonable steps to assist those who are inside a home and in need of aid” that are protected under a separate “exigent circumstances” doctrine, Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted in a concurring opinion, such as when an elderly person has fallen or to prevent a potential suicide.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2021/05/17/supreme-court-blocks-police-from-entering-homes-without-a-warrant-for-caretaking-siding-against-biden-law-enforcement/

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-157_8mjp.pdf

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 59685
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #221 on: May 17, 2021, 07:32:58 PM »
Supreme Court Blocks Police From Entering Homes Without A Warrant For ‘Caretaking’—Siding Against Biden, Law Enforcement

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that law enforcement cannot legally enter homes without a warrant even in cases where doing so may benefit the public interest, striking down the suggestion from law enforcement and the Biden administration that doing so under a “community caretaking” exception would be justified.

The case, Caniglia v. Strom, considered whether police acted lawfully by entering a man’s home and removing his firearms without a warrant after he had expressed thoughts of suicide and was taken to the hospital for a psychiatric evaluation.

Police entered the home under a “community caretaking” exception that allows entry in cases where doing so benefits the public interest, which has traditionally applied to incidents regarding vehicles but not in homes.

That exception had been favored by the law enforcement in the case and also the Biden administration, whose Justice Department said in an amicus brief that police should be able to enter homes without a warrant in cases that are “objectively grounded in a non-investigatory public interest, such as health or safety.”

The court ruled that the exception could not be extended to the home without violating the Fourth Amendment, overturning two lower courts that sided with the police officers and their argument that the amendment “does not prohibit law enforcement officers from diffusing a volatile situation in a home to protect the residents or others.”

“What is reasonable for vehicles is different from what is reasonable for homes,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his opinion for the court, noting that the previous standard that allowed the “community caretaking” exception was not “a standalone doctrine that justifies warrantless searches and seizures in the home.”

The court’s decision does not affect police officers’ ability to take “reasonable steps to assist those who are inside a home and in need of aid” that are protected under a separate “exigent circumstances” doctrine, Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted in a concurring opinion, such as when an elderly person has fallen or to prevent a potential suicide.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2021/05/17/supreme-court-blocks-police-from-entering-homes-without-a-warrant-for-caretaking-siding-against-biden-law-enforcement/

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-157_8mjp.pdf

Now this is what I love to see:  a 9-0 decision AND one that preserves individual liberty. 

ThisisOverload

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5394
  • Team Horse Cock
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #222 on: May 18, 2021, 01:05:06 PM »
Supreme Court Blocks Police From Entering Homes Without A Warrant For ‘Caretaking’—Siding Against Biden, Law Enforcement

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that law enforcement cannot legally enter homes without a warrant even in cases where doing so may benefit the public interest, striking down the suggestion from law enforcement and the Biden administration that doing so under a “community caretaking” exception would be justified.

The case, Caniglia v. Strom, considered whether police acted lawfully by entering a man’s home and removing his firearms without a warrant after he had expressed thoughts of suicide and was taken to the hospital for a psychiatric evaluation.

Police entered the home under a “community caretaking” exception that allows entry in cases where doing so benefits the public interest, which has traditionally applied to incidents regarding vehicles but not in homes.

That exception had been favored by the law enforcement in the case and also the Biden administration, whose Justice Department said in an amicus brief that police should be able to enter homes without a warrant in cases that are “objectively grounded in a non-investigatory public interest, such as health or safety.”

The court ruled that the exception could not be extended to the home without violating the Fourth Amendment, overturning two lower courts that sided with the police officers and their argument that the amendment “does not prohibit law enforcement officers from diffusing a volatile situation in a home to protect the residents or others.”

“What is reasonable for vehicles is different from what is reasonable for homes,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his opinion for the court, noting that the previous standard that allowed the “community caretaking” exception was not “a standalone doctrine that justifies warrantless searches and seizures in the home.”

The court’s decision does not affect police officers’ ability to take “reasonable steps to assist those who are inside a home and in need of aid” that are protected under a separate “exigent circumstances” doctrine, Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted in a concurring opinion, such as when an elderly person has fallen or to prevent a potential suicide.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2021/05/17/supreme-court-blocks-police-from-entering-homes-without-a-warrant-for-caretaking-siding-against-biden-law-enforcement/

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-157_8mjp.pdf

Good!

Skeletor

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 13307
  • Silence you furry fool!
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #223 on: June 04, 2021, 08:09:02 PM »
FPC Wins “Assault Weapon” Lawsuit in Historic Victory for Second Amendment Rights

Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that Judge Roger T. Benitez of the Southern District of California has issued an opinion in Miller v. Bonta (previously Miller v. Becerra), holding that California’s tyrannical ban on so-called “assault weapons” is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The opinion, along with other filings in this case, can be viewed at AssaultWeaponLawsuit.com .

In 2019, FPC developed and filed Miller v. Becerra, a federal Second Amendment challenge to California’s Assault Weapons Control Act (AWCA) ban on common semiautomatic arms with certain characteristics, including those with ammunition magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds. Throughout the lawsuit, FPC argued that the State’s ban prohibits arms that are constitutionally protected, no more lethal than other certain arms that are not banned, and commonly possessed and used for lawful purposes in the vast majority of the United States.

In the opinion, the Court ruled that many categories of firearms California bans as so-called “assault weapons” are protected by the Second Amendment, and that “[t]he Second Amendment stands as a shield from government imposition of that policy.” It went on to order an injunction against “Defendant Attorney General Rob Bonta, and his officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with him, and those duly sworn state peace officers and federal law enforcement officers who gain knowledge of this injunction order or know of the existence of this injunction order,” preventing them “from implementing or enforcing” the following:

California Penal Code §§ 30515(a)(1) through (8) (defining an “assault weapon” by prohibited features);
§ 30800 (deeming those “assault weapons” a public nuisance);
§ 30915 (regulating those “assault weapons” obtained by bequest or inheritance);
§ 30925 (restricting importation of those “assault weapons” by new residents);
§ 30945 (restricting use of those registered “assault weapons”) ;
§30950 (prohibiting possession of those “assault weapons” by minors); and,
the penalty provisions §§ 30600, 30605 and 30800 as applied to “assault weapons” defined in Code §§ 30515(a)(1) through (8).

“In his order today, Judge Benitez held what millions of Americans already know to be true: Bans on so-called ‘assault weapons’ are unconstitutional and cannot stand,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “This historic victory for individual liberty is just the beginning, and FPC will continue to aggressively challenge these laws throughout the United States. We look forward to continuing this challenge at the Ninth Circuit and, should it be necessary, the Supreme Court.”

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-wins-assault_weapon-lawsuit-in-historic-victory-for-second_amendment-rights

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 59685
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #224 on: June 04, 2021, 10:17:09 PM »
FPC Wins “Assault Weapon” Lawsuit in Historic Victory for Second Amendment Rights

Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that Judge Roger T. Benitez of the Southern District of California has issued an opinion in Miller v. Bonta (previously Miller v. Becerra), holding that California’s tyrannical ban on so-called “assault weapons” is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The opinion, along with other filings in this case, can be viewed at AssaultWeaponLawsuit.com .

In 2019, FPC developed and filed Miller v. Becerra, a federal Second Amendment challenge to California’s Assault Weapons Control Act (AWCA) ban on common semiautomatic arms with certain characteristics, including those with ammunition magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds. Throughout the lawsuit, FPC argued that the State’s ban prohibits arms that are constitutionally protected, no more lethal than other certain arms that are not banned, and commonly possessed and used for lawful purposes in the vast majority of the United States.

In the opinion, the Court ruled that many categories of firearms California bans as so-called “assault weapons” are protected by the Second Amendment, and that “[t]he Second Amendment stands as a shield from government imposition of that policy.” It went on to order an injunction against “Defendant Attorney General Rob Bonta, and his officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with him, and those duly sworn state peace officers and federal law enforcement officers who gain knowledge of this injunction order or know of the existence of this injunction order,” preventing them “from implementing or enforcing” the following:

California Penal Code §§ 30515(a)(1) through (8) (defining an “assault weapon” by prohibited features);
§ 30800 (deeming those “assault weapons” a public nuisance);
§ 30915 (regulating those “assault weapons” obtained by bequest or inheritance);
§ 30925 (restricting importation of those “assault weapons” by new residents);
§ 30945 (restricting use of those registered “assault weapons”) ;
§30950 (prohibiting possession of those “assault weapons” by minors); and,
the penalty provisions §§ 30600, 30605 and 30800 as applied to “assault weapons” defined in Code §§ 30515(a)(1) through (8).

“In his order today, Judge Benitez held what millions of Americans already know to be true: Bans on so-called ‘assault weapons’ are unconstitutional and cannot stand,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “This historic victory for individual liberty is just the beginning, and FPC will continue to aggressively challenge these laws throughout the United States. We look forward to continuing this challenge at the Ninth Circuit and, should it be necessary, the Supreme Court.”

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-wins-assault_weapon-lawsuit-in-historic-victory-for-second_amendment-rights

Good.  Now I can see the 9th Circuit reversing and the U.S. Supreme Court slapping the 9th Circuit around, again.