U.S. judge overturns California’s ban on assault weapons

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

It was a fucking dumb law that stopped nothing. You could always buy ARs and AKs in California, you just have to put a weird grip on it that, incidentally, blocks positive access to the standard safety on ARs. If you don’t like guns or want those rifles gone the current incarnation of the Assault weapon ban was never going to be a law that did it. The people writing it understood those particular guns so poorly it was almost immediately circumvented by making ingenious modifications like -tilt the grip a little or wrap it in plastic -pin the stock in place – put a muzzle brake on it -want a front grip? Tilt that too BOOM, no ” assault weapon” here.

HummingBored1

It will be a while before anything comes of this – if ever. I thought the name sounded familiar. It’s the same judge who ruled against the CA magazine ban a few years ago, and that one is still working its way through appeals.

lexachronical

About time. The “assault weapon” misnomer is a just a boogeyman tactic used by people with limited knowledge of the firearms they seek to ban.

queen_slank

CA resident, liberal Democrat, and pro red-flag law guy here. This was always a terrible law. Not, in my opinion, for the reason the judge laid out (which seem absurd to me), but because this law was arbitrary. Guns of very specific design were banned, while the same gun with a minor cosmetic change was not. It made no sense. Devices that protect the shooter, such as silencers, were banned (if you don’t know, silencers don’t actually make a gun quiet like in the movies; they just make it not totally deafening to shoot). The whole thing was poorly written and done so from the obvious perspective of people with zero knowledge of firearms. We also know from studies that gun bans short of complete and total bans don’t prevent gun violence. And a complete and total ban is impossible at the state level because there are 49 other states. Hell, it’s practically impossible at the federal level, too, because it would take a constitutional amendment and vastly stricter border control. In short, bans are ineffective pipe dreams. Or, perhaps more cynically, bans are a bogeyman made up by the gun lobby to scare fearful people into buying more guns. Regardless, I’m glad this was struck down. I’d rather have no law at all than an arbitrary and nonsensical law.

Kahzgul

I’m gonna get my popcorn and a bag of marshmallows for the flame war this thread is gonna be!

fudgemeister