interest case in california regarding Assault Weapons

[bossy22]

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C057995.PDF

the court held that assault weapons and .50 bmg rifles are not protected by the second amendment

i would like to know the argument for the plaintiff since i believe that if the right argument is made, you could convince a panel that "assault weapons" are protected by the 2A

also in the decision it sounded like the judges were a bit confused on what an assault weapon was

[Deadric Damodred]

1. It won't let me read it, but...

...as far as "assault weapons" are concerned, the case is they are common. And I made a thread about the "dangerous & unusual" clause, and was told by those even more knowledgable than me that that particular clause has already been legally shown to be in regard to NFA weapons. Now .50 BMG rifles, I don't know how common they are. I own the AR-50...which is damned fun to shoot...but that ran me $3000, plus $200 for the bipod, plus $400 for the scope, plus $100 for the scope rings, plus $400 for 100 rounds of ammo.......that's a lot of money. So, even though I think they are protected as they are not NFA weapons, I'm not so sure it would be easy to call them "common".


Let me do a quick edit here for the anti-gunners reading this: Yes, I bought a badass rifle that I have no training whatsoever for, and will only shoot, where legal to shoot it, at things like bowling pins and cinder blocks. Why? Because it gets my giggle. That's my justifcation for it.....because that gun to me, is like a kid that just got a hand full of firecrackers. You can take that justification and shove it.

[bossy22]

2. agreed, my main argument was about

AR type rifles...not really the .50 cal rifles

[Statistical]

3. Sweet love of god.....

I read 10 pages or so but couldn't read anymore.

The man had restraining order prohibiting him from possessing weapons (never explained how or why but he doesn't contest that)

His defense was:
1) I forgot about the weapons and turned in "most" of them.
2) Except the 0.50 BMG which I knew was illegal in CA and would get in trouble turning them in.

He threw 2nd amendment protects me as a last ditch effort.

Sadly his stupidity and lack of credible counsel now creates precedent but it isn't very directly compelling.

If you forget about weapon and admit to keeping weapons you know are illegal this case might bite you.

I would recommend against both.

[slackmaster]

4. Oh teh noes, he had a BLOWGUN too!

My state's weapon control laws are an embarrassment.

[michreject]

5. Oh teh noes, he had a BLOWGUN too!

Well I'll be dipped in shit.:evilgrin:

[dashrif]

7. Humm

shows how much I know I thought it was legal until you come into possession of a poison dart frog :hi:

[slackmaster]

8. Those are illegal without a permit too.

:nuke:

[rl6214]

6. It's the california 3th appelate district court

Would you really expect anything different?