U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez
BY Herschel Smith
3 years, 3 months ago
A gun owner himself, Benitez has made rulings that have taken aim at California’s decades-old attempts by lawmakers and voters to toughen gun laws. He deemed the state’s assault-weapon ban — signed into law in 1989 by Republican Gov. George Deukmejian — a “failed experiment.”
California’s assault-weapon ban violates the 2nd Amendment in part because militias could be forced to settle for “less than ideal” weapons rather than the “ideal” AR-15 rifle, Benitez wrote. (“That may not be a severe burden today when the need for the militia is improbable,” he wrote. “One could say the same thing about the improbable need for insurance policies.”)
“That was a new and deeply disturbing line of thinking,” said Ari Freilich, the California policy director for the Giffords Law Center. Benitez, he said, seemed to suggest that the 2nd Amendment protects the right of “average people in a civilian militia to make war against their government.”
“If we take that seriously, then there’s no limiting principle on the types of firearms that people should be allowed to possess, including tanks, anti-aircraft missiles and machine guns,” Freilich said.
New, he says. Perhaps he could go back in time a bit and recall what the founders did to King George. And then ponder the fact that the very second amendment he’s calling unserious was written by men who had just made war on their government.
On August 10, 2021 at 10:45 pm, The Wretched Dog said:
re: “then there’s no limiting principle on the types of firearms that people should be allowed to possess, including tanks, anti-aircraft missiles and machine guns,” —
An inconvenient fact for the Left, et al is that private ownership of cannon was a thing in the 1700 and 1800’s. When Congress authorized Privateers and issued Letters of Marque, Congress did not purchase or provide the cannon to arm the ships. Ship owners did this one their own.
QED: Cannon in 1798 pretty much equals machine guns and tanks, today.
TWD
On August 11, 2021 at 5:00 am, Roger J said:
The comment about tanks (which ARE legal to own in some states), antiaircraft missiles and machine guns (again, legal) is a typical “argumentum ad absurdam” logical fallacy much beloved of progressives/liberals to “prove” their point. I have seen the same line applied to civilian ownership of nuclear weapons – to which my response is, the crime lies in unlawful use, not mere possession. Too bad not more people take that boring, dry course in logic. I learned a lot from it.
On August 11, 2021 at 8:40 am, Frank Clarke said:
Koscinski/Benitez – 2024 :-)
On August 11, 2021 at 8:46 am, Fred said:
Open / Insurrection 2024 :-)
On August 11, 2021 at 8:46 am, Longbow said:
Cannon can still be had, modern artillery pieces too. The National Firearms Act is a mother-lover, makes it more difficult, but not impossible.
Start here…
https://www.dixiegunworks.com/index/page/category/category_id/541/category_chain/540,541/name/Cannons+%26+Cannon+Kits/
On August 11, 2021 at 10:06 am, penses said:
@Fred
I’m shocked. You’ve never heard the old refrain uttered constantly by the greatest gen and the boomers: “It will never happen here.”
On August 12, 2021 at 5:17 am, Joe Blow said:
FIRST FUCKING TINE I heard anyone discuss the proper interpretation of the 2nd as written.
“Bear Arms” does not, and never did mean, hunting rifles and 10 rd pistols. It meant high power modern weapons, cannon, artillery, etc. ARMS, not hunting rifles. Yes, specifically for enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC.
On August 13, 2021 at 10:35 am, luke2236 said:
“That was a new and deeply disturbing line of thinking,” said Ari Freilich, the California policy director for the Giffords Law Center. Benitez, he said, seemed to suggest that the 2nd Amendment protects the right of “average people in a civilian militia to make war against their government.”
No shit Sherlock.