CA District Court Judge Rules AR-15s Not Covered Under 2A

 In 2nd Amendment

CA District Court Judge Josephine Staton ruled on Friday that AR-15s are not covered under the Second Amendment because they’re “killing machines” that are “essentially indistinguishable from M-16s.” This is another case of a liberal judge being completely ignorant about firearms and the difference between fully automatic and semi-automatic. Frankly, these folks don’t care about the Constitution in the first place.

The California Rifle and Pistol Association took the case to court on behalf of Stephen Rupp to challenge the ‘assault weapons’ ban.

The CA District Court Judge

“Because the Court concludes that semiautomatic assault rifles are essentially indistinguishable from M-16s, which Heller noted could be banned pursuant to longstanding prohibitions on dangerous and usual weapons, the Court need not reach the question of whether semiautomatic rifles are excluded from the Second Amendment because they are not in common use for lawful purposes like self-defense.”

Rupp vs Becerra, Judge Josephine Staton, Central District

No. 8:17-cv-00746

They are in common use – the AR-15 is the most commonly purchased weapon in the United States today. As Cam Edwards at Bearing Arms pointed out, they are sold more than Dodge Ram pickups – and those are most assuredly not “unusual.” The AR-15 has been used in self-defense. (See below).

Breitbart reported,

Stanton’s point overlooks the fact that M-16s are fully automatic firearms, which can fire a magazine-full of bullets per one trigger depression, while AR-15s are semiautomatic rifles, which fire one round per trigger pull, period.  Her position aligned with that California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who argued that “[a]ssault rifles may be banned because they are, like the M-16, ‘weapons that are most useful in military service’; and ‘they are also not “in common use” for lawful purposes like self-defense.’”

Stanton opined that a ban on M-16s can stand under scrutiny of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), because such guns are “outside the scope of the Second Amendment.” She then turned to a ban on AR-15s, saying, “Thus, if a weapon is essentially the same as the M-16, it is not protected by the Second Amendment merely because gun manufacturers have given it a different model number and dubbed it a ‘civilian rifle.’”

AR-15s are not military grade weapons and there is a distinct difference. But whether a gun is used by the military or not has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. This CA District Court Judge (as well as the CA State Attorney General) have ruled it “essentially” the same as a fully automatic weapon. California continues to justify its position on guns with obfuscation of the truth. The 2nd amendment is still being eroded.

Hopefully, this ruling will be taken to the higher courts and soundly trounced. And maybe she should have a conversation with Judge Roger Benitez, in the Southern District, since he seems to have a better grasp on the 2nd amendment.

Related:

*****

Sign up for our Uncle Sam’s Misguided Children newsletter, and help us stop censorship. And take a tour through our shop while you’re there!

Showing 3 comments
  • Jay Marlow
    Reply

    We are definitely going to war ,CIVIL WAR!

  • Mike
    Reply

    “essentially indistinguishable from M-16s”
    Like Arnold Schwarzenegger is essentially indistinguishable from Danny DeVito!

  • Al
    Reply

    The 2nd covers all weapons!

Leave a Comment

Start typing and press Enter to search

virginia armed citizenandrew cuomo proposes