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 ...
Who didnt see this coming. The pretzel logic is painful.
Another reason we need to oppose any new gun control legislation.
Might I suggest that these judges take the time to read what the writers of the 2nd amendment said what it means.
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.
Wouldn’t matter - their answer would be something along the lines of “the founders weren’t as smart as we are now”.
In a day and age where drug cartels roam freely in parts of the US armed with real AK 47s for example, their own statement in support of self defense requires support for citizens to be equally armed.
Besides the 2cnd amendment doesn’t say anything about exceptions to this right. They get an F for the their decision.
And they will be proven wrong....California courts are a joke
Next the CA SC will decide that guns other than black powder guns are not “arms” therefore not protected. Later one or more members of the CA SC will be appointed to the USSC and rule the same way. I would say we are on a slippery slope but there is NO SLOPE. Its just straight DOWN.
The court’s ruling is on this page. . .
So we just treat California, Maryland and New York as if they are outside of the United States? Works for me.
And "self defense"? What do these "judges" think self defense is? What if you have to "self defense" yourself against a tyrannical government (you know, like the one not mentioned in the 2A!)?
Actually, the AK’s protected by the second amendment would be the fully automatic ones. With optional grenade launcher.
“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”
Actually, that’s EXACTLY the right it is meant to secure. Morons.
“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.”
Talk about twisted logic. The Miller decision said the short barreled shotgun was not shown to be used by the military. In their twisted way, they are claiming that you should have legal access to a full auto AK47, because the semi-auto version is not used much by the military.
Completely insane. That semi-auto AR-47 type rifle *is* in common use in the United States, far more common than short barrelled shotguns.
I already do.
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.