Assault Weapons Ban

 

My Rifle, My Pony and Me

It's time for a cowboy to sing
Purple light in the canyon
That's where I long to be
With my three good companions
Just my rifle, my pony and me

Is the cowboy singing about  an ASSAULT rifle?

“Like the Swiss Army Knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment. Good for both home and battle, the AR-15 is the kind of versatile gun that lies at the intersection of the kinds of firearms protected under District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and United States v Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). Yet, the State of California makes it a crime to have an AR-15 type rifle. Therefore, this Court declares the California statutes to be unconstitutional”.

This is the opening paragraph of the decision by U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez of San Diego in Miller v. California.  It almost makes me want to throw away my venerable old Swiss Army Knife.  The decision goes on further to say that AR-15s should not be banned because it is protected as a weapon that serves a well-regulated militia.  You are NOT a militia because you say you are a militia. Groups that decide that they are a militia are in fact nothing more than vigilantes and IMO not well-regulated vigilantes at that.

The decision goes on to say that there is a purpose for banning “bazookas, howitzers, or machineguns. Those arms are dangerous and solely useful for military purposes. Instead, the firearms deemed “assault weapons” are fairly ordinary, popular, modern rifles. This is an average case about average guns used in average ways for average purposes.”.  The judge is making an opinion that an AR-15 is an ordinary popular rifle.  If Bazooka, howitzers, or machine guns also become popular, does this mean that they also should not be banned?

It goes on to state that “In 1989, most judicial thinking about the Second Amendment was incorrect.” This is a statement of opinion, not one of fact.  The judge clearly disagrees with the thinking.  He can not say that it is incorrect. He is entitled to his own opinion, he is not entitled to his own facts.

The decision states that “ Although the Attorney General sees it differently, the Supreme Court also recognizes that the Second Amendment guarantee includes a right to keep and bear firearms that have “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.”  I do not think that the Attorney General sees it differently.  The State of California, in its National Guard, has constituted a militia.  There is no other militia in California that has been authorized to my knowledge.  It should not be the plaintiffs or a federal judge who can overrule the State of California and decide that it can constitute a militia and how it chooses to arm that militia.

The decision goes on to say that “Modern rifles have become immensely popular in the United States. Even in California, despite being banned for 20 to 30 years, according to the State’s own evidence, there are 185,569 “assault weapons” currently registered with the California.  …. Californians buy a lot of firearms. In the year 2020 alone, residents bought 1,165,309 firearms.” I can hear my late mother chiding me that just because something was popular that does not make it right.  She would say “If the popular kids all jumped off a bridge, would you?”

If the National Guard of California decided that an AR-15 is required for its arms, which it has not, and its decided that members of the National Guard, arguably the only authorized militia in California, should possess an AR-15 at home, which it has not, then perhaps one could say that there would be a reason  to overturn the ban to regulate this militia.  But the ownership of a popular weapon, by individuals who are not members of a state regulated militia, should not be decided especially by federal law.  The Second Amendment prevents congress from imposing laws on states, such as California, with regards to arming its militia.  It does not protect individuals who are not part of a well-regulated militia from California law.

The Second Amendment was a restraint on the US Congress from enacting laws that supersede a state's authority to arm its militia.  To have that Amendment used to overturn, not an action by the US Congress, but a state law would appear to be the world turned upside down.

On behalf of all of the citizens of the US, this decision should be appealed. The regulation is not on all rifles.  Only on assault rifles  It does not regulate regular rifles .....or ponies.