This is deliberate lies. Conflation, willfully mischaracterizing SCOTUS precedents.
Last week, I called out Beth Alcazar for accepting the victim disarmers’ große Lüge of conflating assault rifle with arbitrary “assault weapon.”
This is why. The Dishonorable Josephine L. Staton misapplied intermediate scrutiny in Rupp v. Becerra, a challenge to California’s “assault weapon” ban. This oath-breaking piece of… work ruled against the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgement, and granted Becerra’s.
The conflation lie shows up immediately.
Thus, in 1999, the AWCA was amended to allow legislators to define a new class of restricted weapons according to their features rather than by model. Under the 1999 amendments, a weapon was an “assault rifle” if it had “the capacity to accept a detachable magazine,” and any of the following features:
Right there, she falsely states that the law was about assault rifles, which leads her to claim…
Indeed, the Court concludes that semiautomatic rifles are virtually indistinguishable from M-16s.
Since the differences — receiver milling, bolt group, trigger group, and select-fire capability had been explained to the court, she is flat out lying. She rationalizes with something about which The Zelman Partisans have been warning you: rate of fire.
In enacting the now-defunct federal ban on assault rifles, Congress found that their rate of fire––300 to 500 rounds per minute–– makes semiautomatic rifles “virtually indistinguishable in practical effect from machineguns.
Again with the assault rifle conflation, and a deliberate mischaracterization of The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994 which defined “assault weapons” as something distinctly different than assault rifles.
Then there is this:
In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Yet another outright lie. In HELLER, SCOTUS most carefully noted that the Second Amendment protects a preexisting right.
The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.
Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.
Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion.
Moving on to another lie…
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.
“Not in common use…” Reality begs to differ. AR-pattern rifles are often used for self defense. And hunting. Not to mention various other shooting sports. What in the flaming heck does Staton think people are doing with more than 16 million AR- and AK-pattern firearms?
But now that the “Honorable” Judge Malfeasance has equated semi-automatic ARs to select-fire M-16s, another Supreme Court precedent comes into play: MILLER.
In Miller, SCOTUS found that — because no one showed up to counter the prosecution’s ridiculous claim that the military doesn’t use short-barrel shotguns — short-barrel shotguns could be regulated under the NFA. Weapons suitable for militia use could not be regulated.
Staton has just ruled that semi-automatic AR-15 are military weapons. Under MILLER, the possession of them by individuals (See HELLER) is most certainly protected by the Second Amendment.
Reading her ruling alternates between infuriating and mind-numbing.
A pistol grip increases a shooter’s ability to control the rifle and reload rapidly while firing multiple rounds.
I have no idea what a pistol grip on a rifle with a forward magazine well has to do with reloading, but I’m not a lobotomized federal judge.
Regarding adjustable stocks…
Further, the shorter the rifle, the easier it is to conceal
Apparently she chooses to ignore statutory limits on the “concealability of rifles, since the minimum length of a non-NFA rifle is 26 inches.
Finally, flash suppressors reduce the flash emitted upon firing and aid a shooter in low-light conditions while also concealing his or her position, especially at night
Flash hiders don’t hide the flash from others. They don’t “conceal” the shooter’s position.
As discussed throughout, that the rifles are more accurate and easier to control is precisely why California has chosen to ban them.
Then ban sights and rifling, since they make all firearms more accurate. Legalize full-auto — nay, make full-auto mandatory, since, as this dishonest scum notes:
automatic fire “is inherently less accurate than semiautomatic fire.”
Clearly California, and Staton, wants firearms to be as inaccurate as possible, for the sake of public safety.
For the foregoing reasons LIES, MISCHARACTERIZATIONS, MISINTERPRETATIONS, AND ARBITRARY DECLARATIONS the Court GRANTS the Attorney General’s Motion for Summary Judgment and DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment.
Fixed it for you.
For this ruling alone, Staton should be impeached. Then indicted, tried, convicted, and sentenced for malfeasance in office.
[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]
(More Tip Jar Options) |
Ed. note: This commentary appeared first in TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!
