U.S. District Court - California Assault Weapons Ban does not violate the 2A. Rupp v Becerra

Discussion in 'National Laws, Bills and Politics' started by tmoore912, Jul 26, 2019.

  1. tmoore912

    tmoore912 Just a Man

    6,031
    160
    63
  2. Mrs_Esterhouse

    Mrs_Esterhouse Swollen Member

    11,831
    505
    113
    Of course. It's a CA court after all.
     

  3. Phil1979

    Phil1979 Member Georgia Carry

    11,493
    600
    113
    Well, if millions of them are sitting in a closet or under the bed, they are not being used. /sarcasm
     
  4. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,622
    1,707
    113
    Apparently there's a different version of the "Heller" decision around that applies only to CA.
     
  5. Craftsman

    Craftsman Well-Known Member

    2,973
    242
    63
    Scalia described the magic incantation to nullify the Second Amendment. The judge is just invoking that incantation. Add it to the list.
     
  6. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    At least the judge has some reasoning ability.

    5 The Court notes, however, that analyzing the constitutionality of the AWCA based “on how common a weapon is at the time of the litigation would be circular.” Friedman v. City of Highland Park, Illinois, 784 F.3d 406, 409 (7th Cir. 2015) (noting that “[m]achine guns aren’t commonly owned for lawful purposes today because they are illegal” and “semi-automatic weapons with large-capacity magazines are owned more commonly because, until recently (in some jurisdictions), they have been legal”).​
     
  7. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    In Kolbe, the Fourth Circuit, reviewing a nearly identical ban on assault weapons, concluded that the above-quoted passage in Heller creates a “dispositive and relatively easy inquiry: Are the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines ‘like’ ‘M-16 rifles,’ i.e., ‘weapons that are most useful in military service,’ and thus outside the ambit of the Second Amendment?” 849 F.3d at 136; see also Worman v. Healey, 293 F. Supp. 3d 251, 266 (D. Mass. 2018) (granting summary judgment because “the undisputed facts convincingly demonstrate that AR-15s and [large-capacity magazines] are most useful in military service, they are beyond the scope of the Second Amendment”). The Court, however, reads
    Heller more narrowly—it merely provides the M-16 as an example of a historically banned “dangerous and unusual weapon,” and does not endeavor to create a test whereby any weapon that is “most useful in military service” is outside the scope of the Second Amendment.

    Heller sought to justify the fact that some dangerous and unusual weapons that are most useful in military service—such as the M-16—can be banned despite the prefatory clause’s ostensible mandate that the right to bear arms be connected to a well-regulated militia. Given this context, the Court hesitates to read Heller to hold that any weapon that is most useful in the military is outside the scope of the Second Amendment. Heller, however, does plainly provide that the M-16—and weapons “like” it—can be banned as dangerous and unusual weapons. Accordingly, the proper question is: are the semiautomatic rifles at issue here “like” the military’s M-16, a historically banned dangerous and unusual weapon? If so, the semiautomatic rifles are similarly outside the scope of the Second Amendment. This test makes practical sense.
     
  8. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    Intermediate scrutiny strikes again!
     
  9. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,538
    683
    113
    Orbiter Dictum strikes again!

    The HELLER case did not involve assault weapons or considering what weapons are "too dangerous" for the general public to have --other than the distinction between handguns and long guns. The only question was whether Washington DC residents who go through a background check and licensing process must be issued a permit to have a working handgun in their homes. The Supreme Court said "yes" the 2nd Amd. covers handguns at home.

    Assault weapons is a topic that some of the justices may have asked questions about during oral arguments but it was not the focus of the questioning. Nor did the parties fully brief that issue, and Dick Heller and the litigants in that case were not attempting to fight for a right to have what might be called assault weapons .

    Therefore, the courts opinion on AR15's is dicta and should be given very little weight.
     
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2019
    tmoore912 likes this.
  10. diamondback

    diamondback Well-Known Member

    1,224
    39
    48
    ONlhy in california. A gun can get banned but illegal invaders are ok
     
  11. Nemo

    Nemo Man of Myth and Legend

    12,815
    820
    113
    We will need to remember this case when SCOTUS stretches Heller in the NY case coming up next term. NYC has changed any law or requirement that was contested in the case to fully meet Petitioners claim. NYC then filed a motion to dismiss which SCOTUS denied.

    Should SCOTUS go beyond the contested (now non-existant) claims at issue, this case can support the argument it is not simple guidance or dicta but binding precedent.

    Nemo

     
  12. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,622
    1,707
    113
    If that part of Heller was dicta why do courts continually refer to it as if it were settled law?
     
  13. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    No part of Heller discusses AR-15 rifles. It mentions the M-16.


    It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful

    in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be

    banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely

    detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said,

    the conception of the militia at the time of the Second

    Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens

    capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of

    lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia

    duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as

    effective as militias in the 18th century, would require

    sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at

    large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small

    arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and

    tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited

    the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the

    protected right cannot change our interpretation of the

    right.
     
  14. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,622
    1,707
    113
    That may be true but the courts seem to use the terms interchangeably. M16, AR-15, assault weapon. All the same to them it seems.
     
  15. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    Heller does not even say M-16s may be banned. It says "if."
     
  16. tmoore912

    tmoore912 Just a Man

    6,031
    160
    63
    [​IMG]
    Rob
    @2Aupdates ·
    1h

    Rupp v Becerra (9th Circuit): Request to extend time to file the brief is approved. Amended briefing schedule: Appellee Xavier Becerra answering brief due 03/27/20. The optional reply brief is due 21 days from the date of service of the answering brief.


    [​IMG]
    Docket for Steven Rupp v. Xavier Becerra, 19-56004 - CourtListener.com
    Docket for Steven Rupp v. Xavier Becerra, 19-56004 — Brought to you by the RECAP Initiative and Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information.
    courtlistener.com



    Rupp v Becerra (9th Circuit): Amicus Brief of Pink Pistols in Support of Appellants https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/2020-02-03-Amicus-Brief-of-Pink-Pistols-ISO-Appellants.pdf


    Rupp v Becerra (9th Circuit): Amicus Brief of National African American Gun Association, Inc. in Support of Appellants https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/2020-01-31-Amicus-Brief-of-National-African-American-Gun-Association-ISO-Appellants.pdf
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2020
  17. tmoore912

    tmoore912 Just a Man

    6,031
    160
    63
    What arms are "common"?

    Amicus brief challenging California rifle ban

    DAVID KOPEL |THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY | 2.12.2020 8:34 PM

    "The Ninth Circuit case Rupp v. Becerra challenges the California legislature's ban on a wide of variety of rifles. Last week, I co-authored an amicus brief explaining: 1. Supreme Court precedents state that common arms cannot be banned. 2. Lower courts have used several methodologies to decide whether a type of arm is "common"; under any methodology, the arms targeted by California plainly are common. Therefore, prohibition is unconstitutional."

    https://reason.com/2020/02/12/what-arms-are-common/?amp&__twitter_impression=true
     
  18. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,622
    1,707
    113
    If politicians would stop banning things because of emotions and "feeeeeeeeelz" a lot of "uncommon" weapons would probably become more "common."