TLDR: There’s a court case in CA regarding the constitutionality of an assault weapons ban and this ruling was that during the course of the case that the law should remain enforced as it had previously been.
This particular ruling isn’t a final ruling on the matter.
Thank god we don’t have to rely on thoughts and prayers.
Odd thing to thank god for
That’s the joke 😝
lol “thank god”? good one.
We basically do. Assault weapon bans don’t accomplish anything beyond security theater, because “assault weapon” isn’t a term of art, and using the dictionary instead, all weapons are assault weapons.
So universally speaking, what an assault weapons ban really consists of s politicians arbitrarily generate a list of specific firearms to ban, with no rhyme or reason to it beyond popularity. That means both of these things are true of every assault weapons ban ever passed:
- The ban will fail to include a significant number of firearms as dangerous as or more dangerous than the most dangerous weapon on the ban list.
- Anyone wanting to commit gun violence can trivially evade such a ban by acquiring any of the aforementioned firearms.
It’s pure security theater, accomplishing no meaningful security whatsoever.
What would you suggest to make the ban more effective?
The answer from functionally anyone in the pro-gun community will be “nothing, no weapons should ever be banned”.
Sometimes they might promote the legalising of full-auto weapons but since it wouldn’t significantly increase the profits of the gun lobby, most of the time this idea doesn’t cross their mind.
But unlike when those weapons were banned, these days every politician trying to implement gun control in America needs to walk on eggshells.
The pro-gun community is full of people that proudly boast about how they’ll kill anyone who tries to “take their guns”, despite most gun-control focusing on reducing the social risk of gun ownership by ensuring that the “responsible” part of “responsible gun owner” isn’t voluntary.
Somewhere deep inside themselves where the voice of an abusers lives, they know how effrctive “if you try and reduce the number of legal gun owners doing domestic terrorism, we promise to do even more domestic terrorism” can be.
You also have the gun lobby, who will challenge absolutely anything that could reduce their profits, fighting it through every court to wear out voters and find a sympathic judge.
But the dirty secret is that gun-control that works isn’t just possible, it’s not even difficult.
It’s why the rest of the world hasn’t struggled with any kind of gun reform – they don’t have voters pledged to a death cult and a lobby making millions.
And these reforms even go sensibly in both directions in a way that America seems fundamentally incapable of.
When New Zealand discovered it was alarmingly easy for a far-right terrorist to buy the guns they need kill 50 people and maim nearly 50 more, they tightened up those laws. There was no civil war. Criminals didn’t overrun the country. It didn’t descend into fascism the moment they stopped selling guns to fascists.
Over in Australia, they’d already done this. But what about all the ranges and hobby shooters caught in the same net? It turns out that’s not difficult either. If you and a bunch of friends – none of whom have had so much as a background check, let alone a gun license – want to go target shooting, you book a time and go.
The rules governing unlicensed shooters at a range and qualified supervision are far more relaxed than those that govern privately owning firearms and keeping them at your home, without needing “buy any gun you want, for any reason you want, and take it anywhere you go”.
But in America, you get “assault weapon bans”, because you can’t ban or restrict the semi-automatic weapons that are the tool of choice for criminals, terrorists and abusers. You can focus on a tiny little subset, that you then have to try and hold on to for as long as possible.
But we could do so much better if we stopped caring what the problem thinks of the solution.
If you buy or sell a gun without a background check, poorly secure a firearm, beat your wife as a gun owner or a hundred other vile acts the pro-gun community protects, that should be a felony and those guns should be evidence of that crime.
If you’re convicted of that crime, congratulations, you’re a felon and have lost your second amendment right, just like every other felon, with due process of the law.
And if they want to kill innocent people over it, they will be treated like every other legal gun owner that decides to kill innocent people over personal grievances with society.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the injunction issued last week by U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez in San Diego from taking effect while the case remains under review.
The panel also unanimously agreed that state Attorney General Rob Bonta’s appeal in support of the gun law would be heard on its merits on an expedited basis.
“Weapons of war do not belong on our streets,” Bonta said, pointing to a mass shooting earlier this week in Lewiston, Maine, that claimed 18 lives and left 13 others wounded.
California in 1989 became the first U.S. state to ban assault weapons, acting in the wake of a school shooting that killed five children and toughening the law the following year.
Since then, California has restricted the manufacture, distribution, transportation, importation, sale or possession of firearms that qualify under the law as “assault weapons.”
Such guns are defined as those with certain tactical enhancements or configurations designed to make them more dangerous to the public and thus susceptible to criminal use.
The original article contains 367 words, the summary contains 168 words. Saved 54%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Civilians do not need automatic weapons. So this ruling makes sense.
This court case isn’t about automatic firearms it’s about semiautomatic firearms that exhibit listed features.
This particular rulling also is only about if the law should be enforced while a the trial regarding it’s constitutionality ensues.
Then the headline is wrong because semi-auto firearms are not federally defined as assault weapons.
They’re operating off of the CA definition in the headline.
To the best of my knowledge the only federal definition of the phrase ‘assault weapon’ came from the 1994 ban which ceased in 2004. And that targeted semiautomatic guns too as it was based off of California’s.
Thank you for the correction. I am dumb
No problem, we all have our moments.
Yes it is. Keep this moments and senses. Secure child’s and of yours. We can’t meeting. It is cardon power. It’s 25…
They just like fucking with definitions.
It’s federal courts ruling on constitutionality of state laws
This case has nothing to do with automatic weapons besides demonstrating people’s ignorance of the law.
Automatic weapons were banned federally in 1934
They weren’t banned.
They required a $200 tax stamp at the time.
Now, they require a federal form (NFA Form 4), the $200 tax stamp and a metric ass ton of money since the public cannot purchase a full auto weapon manufactured after 1986 (Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986).
edit: Changed the tax amount, actually looked it up.
You forgot to also add that I am dumb and don’t know what I’m talking about
You forgot to also add that regular people cannot do all that because they also need to be a FFL
No, I didn’t, because, no they don’t.
If they’re manufacturing automatic weapons or wish to purchase an automatic weapons manufactured after 1986 to law enforcement, THEN you need a class 3 FFL license. If they’re manufacturing, then they also need to file a form 1.
Private individuals can purchase a machine gun without an FFL, assuming your state law allows it via form 4. An FFL makes the process easier, but it’s not a requirement
Yes. They are what are defined federally as “assault weapons” this entire discussion here is about.
So this headline and story are literally pointless and designed to instigate arguments.
I am pro gun and own several, however fuck automatic weapons no one needs those except the military and cops. Also fuck cops.
Why do cops need automatic weapons?
Why do cops need weapons at all? They are the most likely to misuse them and you are more likely to die from a cop then you are to die by an automatic weapon, or an “assault rifle.”
