Quote of the Day
The state court mistakenly did not regard the pistol or the billy to be the sorts of arms protected by the Second Amendment. Instead, only weapons of war were covered by the Constitution, according to Workman. As to other kinds of arms, Workman incorrectly observed,
in regard to the kind of arms referred to in the [Second] amendment, it must be held to refer to the weapons of warfare to be used by the militia, such as swords, guns, rifles, and muskets,—arms to be used in defending the State and civil liberty,—and not to pistols, bowie-knife, brass knuckles, billies, and such other weapons . . . .
(Emphasis added.). In short, Workman held that weapons of war are protected by the Second Amendment but found weapons like the billy are not weapons of war, and therefore are not protected.
Workman was wrong in concluding the Second Amendment does not cover arms like the pistol and the billy.
…
The Second Amendment protects a citizen’s right to defend one’s self with dangerous and lethal firearms. But not everybody wants to carry a firearm for self defense. Some prefer less-lethal weapons. A billy is a less-lethal weapon that may be used for self-defense. It is a simple weapon that most anybody between the ages of eight and eighty can fashion from a wooden stick, or a clothes pole, or a dowel rod. One can easily imagine countless citizens carrying these weapons on daily walks and hikes to defend themselves against attacks by humans or animals. To give full life to the core right of self-defense, every law-abiding responsible individual citizen has a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms like the billy for lawful purposes.
Hon. Roger T. Benitez
Senior United States District Judge
February 23, 2024
Russell Fouts et al, v. Rob Bonta
2nd Amendment rulings by Judge Benitez are always a pleasure to read.
I especially like the above parts. California should not have tried to defend this law. They ended up bringing up rulings to the attention of the courts and 2nd Amendment lawyers that it was commonly understood that the 2nd Amendment protects weapons of war, and California is so far out of touch with reality that they banned possession of sticks which any eight year old could have picked up while walking through a park.
The unsaid part here is that if weapons of war are protected then these would be tyrants have to find mantra other than, “REMOVE WEAPONS OF WAR FROM OUR STREETS”.
If weapons of war are protected, I want a grenade launcher and a LMG.
Yup, and my SBR’s, M240 SAW. etc.
That’s a real fun list!
California: Only weapons of war are protected by the Constitution!
Also California: Weapons of war are dangerous and must be prohibited!
Normally I’d say “Pick one,” but in reality neither is Constitutionally valid.
(As an aside, if the anti-gunners’ goal is to “save lives”, you’d think they would be in favor of allowing — or even encouraging — less-lethal arms like stun guns, Tasers, billies, etc., for self-defense against criminals. But they work just as hard to ban them as they do to ban firearms.
It’s almost like their goal isn’t actually to save lives, but to render us completely defenseless. Or something.)
Arguing over weapons/types is a dodge. Once again, the text of 2A is not being read in plain English.
“The right of the people to keep and bear “ARMS”, shall not be infringed.”
Don’t say crap about what type, shape, size, how scary it looks, or how it performs/is used.
None of that is up to government interpretation.
And though judge Benitz is a wonder to behold. (May peace and honor be upon him). He should have pointed that out first and foremost.
Communists always try and draw you down into the shit-pit of arguments.
And having shit for brains means they can beat you with experience as Mark Twain spoke about.
As Vox Day wrote years ago. SJW’s/communists always lie. Even/especially in federal court.
We should be truly thankful they didn’t miss spell the 2A with “Bare arms”. Communists would be having a f–k’in field day.
Did you read the entire ruling? I believe judge Benitz’s ruling is consistent with SCOTUS on the point of what is protected.
No I didn’t. When I read my lips move. So, I read over what you posted. Made some ass-u-me-suption. Jump to conclusions like a duck on a junebug.
And posted my comment.
Subsequently. I read over much of it. And though his conclusions and methodology are sound under SCOTUS. If a law wasn’t on the books in 1790’s, it doesn’t count. And the burden is on government to show the law was. Not on the citizen.
And that interest balancing is not allowed against human rights.
I going to stick to the text.
As 2A could have been an act of cleaning up laws on the books/acts being pushed on citizens before, after, and during the revolutionary war.
And our forefathers were just setting a clean slate. With new rules for all to live by.
And wouldn’t any true judge tell you that?
Cause there certainly isn’t any commie judge that would show a thimble of mercy toward you when you get caught violating one on their shiny new laws. Now do they?
“I’m sorry, that’s how it used to be done, not anymore.”
They all understand very well. They just don’t like it.
And just once wouldn’t it be refreshing to hear a judge say; “They wrote the 2A the way they did for a reason. Wither you and your friends chose or even have the intellect to figure it out, is irrelevant.
Get out of this court and never bother anyone ever again with your silly ignorant postulations. There will be consequences.”
Just once would be nice.
10 round limit for mags? No problem, I’ll go belt-fed on my appropriate weapon of war.
And those belts will be required to be no more than 10 links long to be legal. Already covered in one of these misbegotten states…