Miller v. Bonta

[Worriedman]

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/5381/attachments/original/1697737480/2023.10.19_175_OPINION.pdf?1697737480


The Judge Roger T. Benitez does a great job of rebutting the lies of the government in this case in California which sets back the "Assault Weapons Ban".
From the opinion :
Americans have an individual right to keep and bear firearms. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution "guarantees the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” Whether citizens ever fire or need to fire their weapons, is not important. This guarantee is fully binding on the States and limits their ability to devise solutions to social problems. And the guarantee protects “the possession of weapons that are ‘in common use,’ ”  or arms that are “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” These are the decisions this Court is bound to apply. “It's our duty as judges to interpret the Constitution based on the text and original understanding of the relevant provision—not on public policy considerations, or worse, fear of public opprobrium or criticism from the political branches.”

Text, then history...

The judge does the heavy lifting, far better than the attorneys for the plaintiffs, and in so doing proves out that Tennessee is the ONLY state that passed a law to criminalize and completely deny the carry of permitted, protected firearms by any state in the important period from 1791 to 1870s.  We as a state are the outlier.

He continues; "Unless the Supreme Court clearly says otherwise, commonly owned weapons that may be useful for war and are reasonably related to militia use are also fully protected, so long as they are not useful solely for military purposes. Modern semiautomatic rifles, shotguns, and pistols are such reasonably-related arms. In Staples, the Supreme Court identified some types of weapons that do lay beyond the fence of absolute constitutional protection -- and they are not modern semiautomatic rifles, normal shotguns, or threaded barrel pistols."..."This Court has previously determined that the State's ban on modern semi-automatics has no historical pedigree. Prior to the 1990's, there was no national history of banning weapons because they were equipped with furniture like pistol grips, collapsible stocks, flash hiders, flare launchers, or threaded barrels."..."The term “bear” naturally encompasses public carry. The Court explained that the terms “keep” and “bear” mean that the Second Amendment's text protects individuals’ rights to “ ‘keep’ firearms in their home, at the ready for self-defense,” and to carry arms on one's person in and outside the home in case of confrontation".

It is long, but worth the read for those interested in the 2nd Amendment.

Edited October 25, 2023 by Worriedman

[Omega]

Lets hope that the term mostly used to take away our rights is correct in this instance as well.

"As California goes, so goes the nation."

[Worriedman]

Firearms Policy Coalition, GOA and SAF are on this case big time, where is the NRA?

[Moped]

16 hours ago, Worriedman said:

Firearms Policy Coalition, GOA and SAF are on this case big time, where is the NRA?

Waiting to swoop in at the last minute to take credit for any success that we enjoy. Otherwise, they are sitting around counting their money like the Mafia.