Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

AKs Not Protected By 2nd Amendment Says CA Court
http://downtrend.com ^ | october 22, 2013 | Brian Anderson

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 ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: ak; assaultweaponban; banglist; california; guncontrol; guns; secondamendment; tyranny
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-58 last
To: alloysteel

“using a missile of no more than the size of a sewing needle, would prove to be much more deadly.”

Whoopee!

My wife’s supplies for her quilting will now be verboten. And she thought I was the aberrant one.

It is really hard to keep up these days.


41 posted on 10/22/2013 12:21:20 PM PDT by Scrambler Bob ( Concerning bo -- that refers to the president. If I capitalize it, I mean the dog.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

You really can’t fix STUPID!


42 posted on 10/22/2013 12:23:02 PM PDT by Renegade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

If you have oe either hide it or band together and use them.


43 posted on 10/22/2013 12:24:30 PM PDT by muir_redwoods (Don't fire until you see the blue of their helmets)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: G Larry
Well then, perhaps this court is prepared to define the difference between a modern hunting rifle and an AK, without using the phrase “looks scary”.


44 posted on 10/22/2013 12:26:23 PM PDT by Bloody Sam Roberts (So Obama "inherited" a mess? Firemen "inherit" messes too. Ever see one put gasoline on it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Brooklyn Attitude
IIRC miller decision was the result of the defendant not showing up to defend their right to possess a Sawed off shotgun. The fact that short barreled shotguns were commonly used by the military was not presented to the justices.

Honey Tyrant Blackrobe don't give a s**t.

45 posted on 10/22/2013 12:35:10 PM PDT by kiryandil (turning Americans into felons, one obnoxious drunk at a time (Zero Tolerance!!!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: alloysteel

A railgun is an electrically powered electromagnetic projectile launcher based on similar principles to the homopolar motor. A railgun comprises a pair of parallel conducting rails, along which a sliding armature is accelerated by the electromagnetic effects of a current that flows down one rail, into the armature and then back along the other rail.[2]

Railguns have long existed as experimental technology but the mass, size and cost of the required power supplies have prevented railguns from becoming practical military weapons. However, in recent years, significant efforts have been made towards their development as feasible military technology.


46 posted on 10/22/2013 12:37:48 PM PDT by ez (Muslims do not play well with others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

“Talk about twisted logic.”

Thay also say that full auto weapons are not covered by the 2nd because they are not in common use. Well they are not in common use since the govt tightly restricts their use and availability. They also do not stipulate what % of the population constitues “common”. I guess they decide arbitrarily where the cutoff is. No possibility of abuse there.


47 posted on 10/22/2013 12:38:16 PM PDT by Brooklyn Attitude (Things are only going to get worse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Renegade

it’s not stupidity... it’s a deliberate attempt to subvert the 2nd amendmend by the government against the people.

Tyranny, pure and simple.


48 posted on 10/22/2013 12:49:00 PM PDT by SpinnerWebb (In 2012 you will awaken from your HOPEnosis and have no recollection of this... "Constitution")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: kiryandil
IIRC miller decision was the result of the defendant(s) 'Attorney' not showing up (was not paid by defendant) to defend their his right to possess a Sawed off shotgun. The fact that short barreled shotguns were commonly used by the military was not presented to the justices. To Hell, with the 2nd, what about U.S. Constitution {See Article I, Section 8, paragraph 11}

Founders had CANONS. Canons were on PRIVATE ships during the war of 1812. You might say what about TANKS, I say people OWN and USE PRIVATE PLANES which, might be used dangerously (a little sarcasm here).

The Second Amendment was about protection against an intrusive, out of control GOVERNMENT.

The U.S. Constitution {See Article I, Section 8, paragraph 11} authorizes Congress to "grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water". That means they expected individuals to have enough firepower to take on foreign ships and armies (as shown by the "captures on land and water"). You aren't going to do that with a single musket, so at least some people had to own the 18th century weapon(s) of mass destruction, the cannon (and probably more than one).

Letters of Marque and Reprisal. Article I, Section 8, paragraph 11 of the U.S. Constitution authorizes Congress to "grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water." A "reprisal" means an action taken in return for some injury. A reprisal could be a seizing of property or guilty persons in retaliation for an attack and injury. It could include forced used against the perpetrators for the redress of grievances. A reprisal could even involve killing a terrorist who is threatening further harm and cannot be captured.

"Marque" is related to "marching" and means crossing or marching across a border in order to do a reprisal. So a Letter of Marque and Reprisal would authorize a private person, not in the U.S. armed forces, to conduct reprisal operations outside the borders of the U.S.A.

Such Letters are grantable not just by the U.S. Constitution, but also by international law, which is why it was able to be included in the Constitution. The Letters are grantable whenever the citizens or subjects of one country are injured by those in another country and justice is denied by the government of that country.

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque

Applying for, and legal effect of, letter of marque

The procedure for issuing Letters of Marque and the issuing authority varied by time and circumstance. In colonial America, for instance, colonial governors issued them in the name of the king. During the American Revolution, first the state legislatures, then both the states and the Continental Congress, then, after ratification of the Constitution, Congress authorized and the President to sign Letters of Marque. A shipowner would send in an application stating the name, description, tonnage, and force (armaments) of the vessel, the name and residence of the owner, and the intended number of crew, and tendered a bond promising strict observance of the country's laws and treaties and of international laws and customs. The commission was granted to the vessel, not to its captain, often for a limited time or specified area, and stated the enemy upon whom attacks were permitted. For instance, during the Second Barbary War President James Madison authorized the Salem, Mass., brig Grand Turk to cruise against "Algerine vessels, public or private, goods and effects, of or belonging to the Dey of Algiers".[17] (Interestingly, this particular commission was never put to use, as it was issued the same day the treaty was signed ending the U.S. involvement in the war—July 3, 1815.)

Yet private ship owners had cannon, and even as late as Teddy Roosevelt's Roughriders, the {William Tiffany}Tiffany Family gave them a couple of machine guns (Private interests gave the regiment superior firepower). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodbury_Kane or below:

http://www.americanrifleman.org/Webcontent/images/2013-2/20132279156-roughridersgun_m.jpg

from Paragraph 7

But this was not a Gatling; it was a potato digger and, as TR wrote in The Rough Riders (1899): “Our regiment had accumulated two rapid-fire Colt automatic guns, (pre John Browning's design 50 caliber M2 machine gun, see also Note-1) the gift of Stevens, Kane, {William Tiffany}Tiffany {as in Jewelry Family}, and one or two others of the New York men … .”

Note-1: Prior, to the July 1, 1898, assault on San Juan Hill.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodbury_Kane Spanish-American war service

When the Spanish-American War broke out, Kane, with other leaders of society, enlisted in the First United States Volunteer Cavalry, better known as the "Rough Riders." Kane and several of his East Coast friends including William Tiffany donated two Colt Machine Guns that Post $7,500 each. When the Rough Riders will Sic{were} allowed to expand from their original number of 778 to 1000, Kane was commissioned a lieutenant. Roosevelt mention him in his account The Rough Riders:

49 posted on 10/22/2013 1:15:47 PM PDT by Stanwood_Dave ("Testilying." Cop's don't lie, they just Testily{ing} as taught in their respected Police Academy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

AK’s and feral pigs were made for each other.


50 posted on 10/22/2013 1:18:28 PM PDT by showme_the_Glory (ILLEGAL: prohibited by law. ALIEN: Owing political allegiance to another country or government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

Interesting. So AK-style weapons are not...arms.


51 posted on 10/22/2013 1:21:01 PM PDT by lurk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

“Sawed off shotguns were used in WW1, so the court here on Miller 1939 was wrong as well.” Also used in Viet Nam to clear out tunnels.


52 posted on 10/22/2013 1:22:18 PM PDT by BubbaBobTX ("The problem with socialism is you eventually run out of other peoples money." Margaret Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Bloody Sam Roberts
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.

You couldn't have said it any better - I copied and sent it to myself for future reference

53 posted on 10/22/2013 1:35:28 PM PDT by JD91
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Brooklyn Attitude

Your are correct.


54 posted on 10/22/2013 2:04:44 PM PDT by Dalberg-Acton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge
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.”

OK, without straining at gnats, that's a reasonably reasonable statement, especially for a Kalifornistan court. What I don't see is the part where it says "no AK's", so how do they get from Point A to Point B? Is there some reason an AK is inherently unsuited to hunting and self-defense?

55 posted on 10/22/2013 2:32:18 PM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

The black-robe fascists are scared sh*tless that we’ll use an AK to march them to the gallows for hanging. Too bad.


56 posted on 10/22/2013 5:46:04 PM PDT by sergeantdave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CrazyIvan

Congress mandated every member of the unorganized and organized militia was required to procure a military capable musket or rifle along with suitable ammunition. Any such militiaman too indigent to purchase their own arms was to receive funding from the government to help him to comply with this law. The Federal Court is acting in defiance of the letter and spirit of the Second Amendment as demonstrated by history, so the justices responsible for this decision are arguably liable to impeachment and conviction for violations of the U.S. Constitution, absent a future amending of the Second Amendment.


57 posted on 10/22/2013 6:28:25 PM PDT by WhiskeyX ( provides a system for registering complaints about unfair broadcasters and the ability to request a)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog
Another reason we need to oppose any new gun control legislation.

No, it's another example of why we need a full on revolution complete with tar, feathers, rope and trees littered with politicians, liberal lamestream media and activist judge types.

Just my humble opinion of course.

58 posted on 10/22/2013 6:30:40 PM PDT by usconservative (When The Ballot Box No Longer Counts, The Ammunition Box Does. (What's In Your Ammo Box?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-58 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson