Posted on 10/22/2013 11:34:05 AM PDT by lowbridge
On Monday the California 4th District Court Of Appeals ruled that 2nd Amendment does not apply to semi-automatic “AK” type rifles. They opined, “that the right secured by the Second Amendment is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose, but is instead the right to possess and carry weapons typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes such as hunting or self-defense.”
The court based its decision largely on the precedent set in the case of US v. Miller which allowed the banning of sawed-off shotguns on the grounds they had no military or civilian purpose. The court stated, “the ban on AK series rifles does not impinge on rights protected by the Second Amendment because assault weapons are at least as dangerous and unusual as the short-barreled shotgun.”
The case stems from the ultra-confusing Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989, which banned “AR” and “AK” series weapons. Subsequent court rulings said that the state couldn’t ban a type of weapon and must name the forbidden guns specifically by make and model. CA then adopted a list of weapons that were unwelcomed, but the manufactures simply renamed their rifles to get around the list. Finally in 2000 the state banned features like detachable magazines and pistol grips to keep these “assault weapons” illegal.
The defendant, William Zondorak, was busted with an AK-type weapon that appeared on the list of banned guns. Even though his rifle is identical to ones that are sold legally in California, because it was on the list, he’s in deep dog-doo. Any AK or AR receiver that is on the list, even if the gun has been reconfigured to meet CA standards, is still banned.
(Excerpt) Read more at downtrend.com ...
Actually the intent was to shoot the soldiers of a tyrannical government (like the King of England), but why bother pointing that out to a guy who would have been a Tory then.
What's funny is tht in my neck of the woods the scary looking AR clone rifles are rapidly become one of the more popular hunting rifles. People just love to play with their toys.
A case of:
The 2nd amendment means what ever we say it means not what is written there, you stupid peasants.
I had to check the byline to see if this was satire.
So the AK is bad because it isn’t “needed” for hunting or self-defense. And then they use the Miller case in their reasoning, but in that case they ruled against the sawed-off shotgun because they thought it wasn’t a military weapon.
And the kicker on what I thought was satire was when they said “the AK is as dangerous and odd as the sawed-off shotgun”. Well so is a rabid monkey in your pants.
And yet “assault weapons” are among the least powerful firearms a person can purchase.
but they look mean
But-but-but “looks scary” IS the difference between a hunting rifle and a firearm designated as an “AK” rifle.
For a REALLY high-powered long-range assault weapon, the prospect of using an electrically-powered linear acceleration launch platform, rather than some variation of gunpowder, may be the next big technological advance. Muzzle velocities of 10,000 fps, using a missile of no more than the size of a sewing needle, would prove to be much more deadly.
The United States Supreme Court already defined (MANY years ago) the weapons under the 2nd Amendment. Notice, they say nothing of hunting or self-defense. BTW, AKs make good hog hunting rifles.
United States v. Miller (1939)
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
I think a lot of people worldwide will be surprised to find that an AK has “no military purpose”
Those judges need a whiff of antiquated grape shot.
“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. “
Sawed off shotguns were used in WW1, so the court here on Miller 1939 was wrong as well.
They used US vs Miller?!
SWEET! Maybe this will go to the SCOTUS and Miller will be thrown out.
Hey, I can dream.
Yes, they were, but the case couldn’t be completed because Miller died and his partner pleaded to a lesser charge. Now, the Supreme Court is too chicken to
We already know even some artillery is legal to own (black powder cannons). The courts are just too corrupt and cowardly to do their job.
Oops. Was editing and clicked too quickly.
TOTALLY incorrect interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
“...but is instead the right to possess and carry weapons typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes such as hunting or self-defense.”
The second amendment talks about the militia. The SCOTUS recognized this is US vs Miller where the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.”
The AK series rifles are well know military rifles and are MOST appropriately a milita weapon.
“on the grounds they had no military or civilian purpose.”
Did the Ca 4th District Court of Appeals Judges attend the “Rachel Jeantel Skool of Law” or what? They need a refund. Whether or not “Miller” adequately interprets the 2nd Amendment, that ruling makes fitness for military use the standard for a firearm’s legality. That the AK has no “military purpose” will be news to the Red Army, the Chinese PLA, North Korea, Iran, Al Qaeda, and 80%of forces outside Europe. Congress will need to open hearings on why the CIA distributed millions of AK’s to allies and proxy forces worldwide, only to find out they had no military use.
Deliberately bass-ackwards ruling. Hopefully this will be appealed to sentient beings.
It shouldn’t take too long to do some research and find battles wherein our soldiers were being attacked by terrorists or soldiers of another nation’s military, and at times, where our soldier’s weapons became dysfunctional, they grabbed the enemy’s AK 47’s and used them AGAINST THEM!
“Its just straight DOWN.”
And accelerating, with a vacuum!
Kind of like the view of a toilet flushing; one of those new ones with power jet action.
This kind of logic is the logic of tyranny. Sawed off shotguns and AK 47s are definitely weapons our military has used in COMBAT! God what stupid jackasses.
The Second Amendment is a recognition of the danger of standing armies. Its purpose is to recognize that every citizen has the right to keep and bear the same type of basic arms as a soldier in a modern military. A militia embodies all able-bodied men over the age of sixteen. Therefore, a militia will always outnumber a standing army by at least twenty to one. If this militia is armed with weapons similar to those used by the individuals comprising the standing army, it will be impossible for that standing army to inflict the will of a tyrannical government upon the people. The Second Amendment is the guarantee behind all the other articles in the Bill of Rights. It is the ultimate guarantee that citizens in the United States will remain free.
“What a serious misrepresentation and interpretation of the 2A. Obviously, these “judges” are unaware of the history behind the 2A, that or they don’t care.”
It’s the latter, I’m sure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.