Assault Weapon Ban

Here's Why California's 'Assault Weapon' Ban Is Unconstitutional

Such laws arbitrarily prohibit rifles that are commonly used for legal purposes.

|

When California legislators enacted the country's first ban on military-style rifles in 1989, they gave no weight to the fundamental right of armed self-defense guaranteed by the Second Amendment—a right the U.S. Supreme Court did not explicitly acknowledge until nearly two decades later. But as U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez observed in his ruling against California's "assault weapon" ban last Friday, it should now be clear that the outright prohibition of such firearms cannot pass constitutional muster.

California's Assault Weapons Control Act (AWCA), which is similar to laws enforced by a handful of other states, originally applied to a list of more than 50 specific brands and models. In 1999 the law was amended to cover any semi-automatic, centerfire rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and has any of these features: a pistol grip that "protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon," a forward pistol grip, a thumbhole stock, a folding or telescoping stock, a flash suppressor, or a grenade/flare launcher.

The rifles prohibited by the AWCA are among the most popular firearms sold in the United States. Nearly 20 million have been manufactured or imported during the last three decades.

As far as Benitez is concerned, that should be the end of the matter. In the landmark 2008 case that overturned the District of Columbia's handgun ban, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects the right to own weapons "in common use" for "lawful purposes like self-defense"—a test that the rifles covered by California's law clearly satisfy.

Although handguns are used to commit crimes far more often than "assault weapons," the Court rejected the notion that a blanket ban on an entire category of firearms could be justified by the danger they pose in the hands of criminals. It also rejected the idea that such a ban could pass muster because it allowed people to use other kinds of firearms for self-defense.

California nevertheless deployed both of those arguments in defense of the AWCA. Benitez, like the Supreme Court, was unpersuaded.

Benitez concluded that the AWCA cannot survive even under the "intermediate scrutiny" test that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (which includes California) tends to apply in gun control cases. That test requires a "reasonable fit" between an "important government interest" (in this case, prevention of gun violence) and the means chosen to further that interest.

In terms of destructive power, a rifle with the features on California's list is indistinguishable from the same rifle without them. It fires the same ammunition at the same rate with the same muzzle velocity.

California argued that some of the prohibited features help "maintain accuracy in rapid-fire scenarios," making a rifle especially suitable for mass shootings. A video submitted as evidence in this case cast doubt on that claim, showing that an AR-15 without any of those features fired with "approximately the same speed and accuracy" as an AR-15 with all of them.

Assuming that California has succeeded in making rifles less accurate, that is hardly an improvement. Accuracy is especially important when a law-abiding gun owner uses a rifle in self-defense, a scenario that Benitez illustrated with several real-life examples.

Similarly, California has arbitrarily banned the adjustable stock that makes it easier for someone of small stature to use a rifle; the pistol grip that "gives a homeowner a secure hold with one hand while the other hand holds a telephone or spare magazine"; and the flash suppressor that "prevents the night-time home defender from being blinded by her own muzzle flash." Despite all these decrees, Benitez noted, the AWCA has not had an observable effect on the frequency of mass shootings involving "assault weapons," meaning "California's experiment has been a failure."

The impact of the federal "assault weapon" ban that expired in 2004 was similarly unimpressive. President Joe Biden nevertheless wants to try this experiment again. The question is whether the Supreme Court will let him.

© Copyright 2021 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

NEXT: Sidney Powell, Who Denied That Her Wacky Election Conspiracy Claims Were Statements of Fact, Now Says She Will Prove They Were True

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I’m going to bed Sir Strudel, I’ll read your article in the am.

    1. I basically make about $8,000-$12,000 a month online. It’s enough to comfortably replace my old jobs income, especially considering I only work about 10-13 hours a week from home. I was amazed how easy it was after
      I tried it copy below web….Visit Here

  2. “The question is whether the Supreme Court will let him.”

    The cry of the oppressed.

    1. Making money online more than 800$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
      on this page…..VISIT HERE

  3. The top photo is now obsolete. Biden’s BATFE nominee says both firearms depicted are assault weapons and should be banned.

    1. Is there any rifle commonly purchased which isn’t an assault weapon under the definition used in that case?

      1. Any bolt action would be permissible.

        1. I have an Assault Hand. I can strike someone repeatedly with it.

          So will they ‘ go Islamic’ and cut peoples hands off?

          1. As long as they aren’t ‘going Christian’ it should be ok. And as I write this, I happen to be seated at a bar next to a bigoted leftist couple who have verbally shown extreme disdain towards Christians and Christianity.

    2. He can’t overrule the Supreme Court, who cares what he thinks.

      But hopefully his nomination is toast.

  4. AWBs are nonsense as a matter of policy and a matter of law. However, many of the current senior politicians and judges got their start in a pre-Heller world when the federal AWB was still a thing. It’s culture shock for them and they aren’t going to budge easily. Unless SCOTUS weighs in with a heavy hand, the foolishness will continue. In their Highland Park decision the 7th circuit wrote:

    “If a ban on semi‐
    automatic guns and large‐capacity magazines reduces the
    perceived risk from a mass shooting, and makes the public
    feel safer as a result, that’s a substantial benefit.”

    1. ” Feelings….nothing more than feelings…”

      This is all about the Police State. Cops hate armed citizens. They want to run around living out childhood fantasies waving AR15s around. How dare anyone else do so!

      1. You are right about that.

      2. Or they want to cause pregnant women to crash their cars.

    2. “In their Highland Park decision the 7th circuit wrote:

      “If a ban on semi‐
      automatic guns and large‐capacity magazines reduces the
      perceived risk from a mass shooting, and makes the public
      feel safer as a result, that’s a substantial benefit.”

      I believe that is some of the most telling judicial language in our history; and why they are so insistent upon applying their version of “intermediate scrutiny” because there is no way in hell they could even pretend that such “reasoning” [sic] could pass constitutional scrutiny.

    3. “If a ban on semi‐automatic guns and large‐capacity magazines reduces the perceived risk from a mass shooting, and makes the public feel safer as a result, that’s a substantial benefit.”

      This is the same effect of Obamacare. Everyone was getting health care before, whether they were insured or not – albeit mostly through the ER. Post-OboCare, and hundreds of millions of dollars later, studies show that people feel less stress actually knowing that they have insurance but their health care outcomes are no different than before.

      1. To be clear, I don’t think it’s a strong argument in either case. However, it holds much more water in the ACA case. The individual mandate was an economic issue and evaluated under a “rational basis” standard. 2A is an incorporated fundamental rights issue and that standard of review is completely inappropriate. No one would entertain these kinds of arguments in a 1A or 4A case. Not even for an instant.

  5. 2021-1989=32 years. The majority of my life has been lived enduring an unconstitutional abrogation of my rights. Rights that the founder and I believed were inalienable.

    SCOTUS, where in the fuck have you been?

    1. Automatic weapons have been banned for even longer.

      1. They’re not banned. you just have to jump through some more hoops, and pay some extra money, to purchase an actual machine gun.

      2. Thatts a common lie.
        They are NOT banned. It just takes a Class 3 license.

        1. AND, since 1986, your willingness to pay the price for a very limited product.

        2. You don’t need a license to own a full-auto. You need an NFA tax stamp, which is $200 and requires a deeper than standard background check from the ATF. The process can take anywhere from a few months to a year to complete due to backlogs, mostly because buying a silencer requires the same tax stamp.

          The only time you need a license is if you are in the business of selling full-autos. Which also happens to be the only way to get your hands on a full-auto made after 1986.

          1. …just remember..

            that Class 3 gives BATF the right to kick your door in at 2 AM to “inspect” your machine gun…

            Just a.. heads up…

          2. I think that’s what daveca was referring to, being able to own new full-autos (or own them in states that do in fact ban them, like IL)

            Unfortunately the ATF won’t issue you a license just because you want own machine guns, you have to have a legitimate business dealing with them

            1. You have to get a Dealer’s License,somewhat more complicated.

            2. Unfortunately the ATF won’t issue you a license just because you want own machine guns, you have to have a legitimate business dealing with them

              Yeah, and your clients will be pretty much restricted to various law enforcement or government agencies, since no on else can buy them.

      3. As of May 2019 there were 699,977 registered machine guns in the U.S. (non-law enforcement or military- this is private ownership).

        For machine guns being “banned” that is a lot of machine guns.

        Your comment stating they are banned is completely without merit.

        1. I am glad about that.

        2. So they are in “common use”?

          1. I used to commonly use a few full autos, so, yeah.

  6. According to longtime libertarian activist Michael Hihn, libertarians should demand comprehensive gun safety laws including — but not limited to — a ban on deadly military-style assault weapons.

    #BanAssaultWeapons
    #UnbanMichaelHihn

    1. How much dick have you been able to fit in your ass at one time?

      Asking for a friend.

      1. You know OBL, the parody guy, right?

        Sometimes his dalliance with Poe’s Law is a bit hard to swallow, though.

        Speaking of OBL, he has been conspicuous by his absence from commenting on Harris’s exhortation to Guatemalans to stay the fuck home. Time to step up Mr Open Borders!

        1. I’m just playing the game; we each make our own rules.

          1. We do indeed.

      2. All of it, apparently!

  7. Mass murderers have a self image to maintain. You can not go out in a blaze of homicidal glory carrying something found in a Sears catalog; you must look like Rambo. That’s why those sort of weapons get used by maniacs and why legislators ban them – it is solely how they look.
    In fact, it seems that looks are the main attribute of any legislation passed by Progressives.

    1. Except youre lying. Mass kilkers do not use such firearms.

      The media Lied about the colorado shooter USING an AR 15. If you followed the news he did not, there was one in the trunk if his CAR. That lie was trotted out recently wiyh this Decision.

      OK, now, go to Denial and Cherry picking.

    2. JohannesDinkle
      In the 20’s and 30’s you could buy a Thompson sub-machine gun and a BAR from the Sears catalog.

      1. Delivered to your door.

    3. The largest mass murders of the last 20 or so years were all committed with vehicles or explosives.

      1. Yeah, who knew that a box knife was a jetliner key.

  8. Bolt action rifles, General. Don’t forget bolt action rifles.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_minute

    1. The Snipers Choice…

  9. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, MOTHERFUCKERS!

    (all caps in this post were intentional)

  10. Progressives are freaking out over the judge comparing an AR to a swiss army knife, not realizing that you’re several times more likely to be murdered with a knife than with a rifle(unless the FBI’s lying).

    1. Statistically, sure. But when you’re considering the true likelihood, you’re far more likely to get gunned down by someone with a pistol or long gun.

      Just because more domestic incidents involve knives (where you know the disgruntled person) doesn’t mean you stand a far higher likelihood of being gunned down by some crazed lunatic when they finally snap.

      I’m far less concerned about someone I know attacking me with a knife than I am some lunatic just takes a semi-automatic weapon and indiscriminately fires into a crowd that I’m in.

      Hell, why not say “you’re more likely to die in a plane crash than a car crash” and disregard that I drive every single day and take a plane maybe twice a year at best? You can be technically correct while ignoring the actual probability of situations.

      1. Prog doublespeak:

        “Statistically, sure. But when you’re considering the true likelihood, you’re far more likely to get gunned down by someone with a pistol or long gun.”

        JFC, this may be the most bullshit statement I’ve ever read,

        Do you even listen to yourself?

        1. We’re more likely to be gunned down with a gun as opposed to a knife? Really? I never would have guessed. Of course we’re also more likely to be knifed with a grief as opposed to a gun.

          1. That was meant for shitlunches.

      2. How do you function with this level of ignorance? “True likelihood’ is higher than the statistical likelihood? This is why your in-group is called cult-like, you refuse to accept facts that don’t fit your beliefs. The best part, you use the plane crash vs car crash example, which supports the death by stabbing vs shooting -the sources for mockery really never ends with you lot.

        1. RD is Tony’s pathetic sock attempt to get back into the comment section since the mute button became an option.

          He is a total dipshit, and any effort to “reason” with him will be a total and complete waste of your time. Better to go find yourself a two year old on Benedryl and ask him about Proust.

      3. And exactly what are the statistics for murder by stranger, and the odds you might be a victim?

        1. Very low, and 2/3 of all deaths by firearm are suicides.

      4. Hell, why not say “you’re more likely to die in a plane crash than a car crash”

        Because you’re not, shitlunches.

      5. Let’s look at the raw numbers in the United States – per the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Database – 2019 Expanded Homicide Data (Table 8 – Murder Victim by Weapon) there were 6368 murders with a handgun. During the same period, there were 364 with ALL TYPES of rifles- not just the scary “black guns.” ALL TYPES of rifles even includes Granddad’s old .22 (and if you don’t believe those are used in homicides, talk to Edmund Kemper).

        There were 364 Rifle Homicides out of 13,927 Total Homicides in 2019. Assuming arguendo, every rifle homicide that year was with a “scary black rifle” AND that every repeat criminal in the US would obey a ban on scary “black rifles” AND no one would have any way to use a scary “black rifle”- the net effect of a total ban on all scary “black rifles” MIGHT lower the murder count by less than 2.7%. This assumes that individuals who commit these murders do not just grab a different firearm!!!!

        If we were talking about a Government imposed ban on certain types of communication for everyone to stop a limited number false reporting to police (which can also cost lives), there would be intense outcry from all sides- and rightfully so. So why then is it ok to deprive millions and millions of their rights for the actions of a few? Is it because “guns” are involved? Let’s not forget, Hitler killed millions, with a pen, so did Stalin, so did Mao.

        Yes, any wrongful death is a tragedy- even one. So let’s focus on the cause of the wrongful death- and not the weapon they use. Otherwise we are taking an action that is no different than outlawing a certain model of car, to decrease DUI related vehicular Homicides.

        1. “(and if you don’t believe those are used in homicides,”

          In fact ideal for the job..

          ( shuffling away quietly…)

          1. Mossada agrees with you- and they are the best at “wet work” (using the old Soviet phrase. Nothing like a suppressed, subsonic.22 when you want to be able to “take out” a target and have no one hear. (Also good for clearing out small critters without the neighbors hearing!)

            1. Ok – I should have had my glasses on – should say “Mossad agrees with you”

      6. Say what? That’s some of the most incoherent gibberish I’ve read here in a long time. And considering some of the other comments here, that’s saying something.

        Would you care to try again?

      7. “Statistically, sure” what else is there? That’s the science part. The facts. If humans are more likely to be killed with a knife than a gun, then YOU are more likely to be killed with a knife than a gun. Statistically speaking of course.

      8. raspberrydinners
        June.9.2021 at 8:45 am
        “Statistically, sure.”

        Followed by a pile of irrelevant bullshit.

      9. It’s true, you will never be gunned down with a knife. You make the best points, raspy!

      10. And you’re much more likely to be killed by a gun than by an atom bomb. But that doesn’t give you a right to have an atom bomb.

      11. When statistics disagree with Raspberry’s feelings, he denies the statistics. This is not someone you can rationally argue with, but only demonstrate his deliberate irrationality to others.

    2. The ‘ Swiss Army’ reference has a second meaning. In Switzerland, Citizens keep MILITARY WEAPONS AT HOME.

      They dont have Traitors in their Government like we do..

      1. But, then too… They are required to serve in their armed forces and then go on reserve status, not like here in the US where every wannabe or I almost joined wants to carry an AR-!5/M-16/4 to look cool, scary, or bada**.

        1. We have more rightsthan they do.

      2. We should have never stopped destroying marxists like we did back in the 50’s. In fact, we desperately need a constitutional amendment criminalizing the practice of Marxism.

  11. I’am made $84, 8254 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’AM made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,.for more information simply open this link thank you….

    http://www.ecash6.com

  12. The purpose of the Second Amendment is so that free individuals can rise up against the standing army of an oppressive government (see The Federalist Papers No. 29). If the AR-15 is based on the same design as the military’s standard issue M4, then it’s probably better protected by the Second Amendment than a revolver. It isn’t about whether the use of any particular model is legitimate in some third party’s eyes.

    If some people use the Mini-14 or an AR-15 as a practical ranch rifle, that’s completely beside the point. Using them for target shooting and recreation is a perfectly legitimate use. Like I said, the purpose of the Second Amendment is so that we will already be familiar with how to service and use our weapons if and when it becomes necessary to protect ourselves and our rights from the standing army of an oppressive government.

    At the end of the day, the reason progressives don’t send us to reeducation camps like the Chinese Communist Party does with Uygurs in Xinjiang is because they can’t. Yeah, it would be unpopular with swing voters, too, but if ever did become popular with swing voters to send libertarians, capitalists, and heterosexuals off to internment camps, they still couldn’t.

    1. “If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.”

      —-Alexander Hamilton

      The Federalist Papers No. 29

      https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp

      I don’t see anything in there about the right to bear arms being necessary for practical purposes like shooting rabbits and deer.

      And for Alexander Hamilton, who trained farmers to be troops at Washington’s side and led one of the columns that forced Cornwallis’ surrender at Yorktown, defending our rights and liberties from an oppressive government was an entirely practical use of a firearm. This must be the spiritual source of the old saying, “It’s better to have a gun and not need it than to need one and not have it”–only it also suggests that having one make it’s less likely that we’ll ever need to use them.

      1. Well said Ken; and precisely why a thug like Chipman wants to force us into the position of registering and [ultimately] giving them up; they are not really concerned about criminals, but rather those of us who are not.

        The progressives will not realize their vision of a compliant and collective village unless the rabble is disarmed and subdued. Then the authoritarians can do whatever the want.

        1. “It takes a Village to kill a child”

          Free abortions for all! Says Democrats.

    2. You= about the best commenter on line.

      1000%.

      WE being armed beyond thecteeth are why NO ONE dare come here and start anything. ( except subversive mexicans and Muslim infiltrators but they dont dare go armed…not yet anyway).

      ( T shirt I saw on a mexican in WA State ” Im not here to ride the train Im here to rob it.”)

      430 million arms and 20 billion rounds are far beyond ‘ gun behind every bush.’

      Its now at the ‘ behind every blade of GRASS!’

  13. ” Lawful purpise” is a Straw Argument.

    The AWB proves it, making all ownership and use illegal. Thus all uses are unlawful.

    This is not a matter of Law, but Constitution.

    “Shall Not” has no exceptions.

  14. Positives: A 98 page opinion built upon a trial record as opposed to an injunctive opinion or other apealable order that didn’t have a trial record. A data and statistical analysis of the features used in the CA to describe “assault style ” against the prevalence of the features or guns to other murder weapons, criminal weapons, and death/ injuries. It statistically challenged the validity of the assault weapons features or gun in it’s entirety against the perceptions of ” scary looking guns “. A reasoned legal analysis under “Heller” but I personally think that ” McDonald ” established what was attributed to “Heller”.

    Negative/ Neutral: An opinion by a new Sr. Judge. The tone and language deliberately used in the opinion gives the impression that this was his last big opinion, he no longer had pier pressure or career goals that could be jeopardized ( no confirmation hearings/ inquests where his entrails and high school year book would be used as fodder) The analogy of comparing a gun with multiple features to a knife with multiple features ( Swiss Army Knife) in the opening sentence was an inflammatory analogy and opening that overshadowed the well reasoned and detailed trial record and legal analysis of the opinion. Politicians, media, activists real the first sentence and were so outraged they couldn’t comprehend or intellectually appreciate the balance of the remaining 97 pages of the opinion. The judge stayed his order for 30 days in a manner that indicated he knew the opinion would be volatile and that the state of California was guaranteed to appeal to the 9th Circuit for public relations/ political/ legal advocacy reasons. The opinion was written with flourishes that make the opinion rhetorical but appear to be designed to be ” click bait “.

    This opinion could be a good vehicle for getting the issue of ” scary guns “, “assault weapons/ assault weapon features, and statistically based analysis of guns to SCOTUS. There is a 99.9% chance that California will appeal to the 9th Circuit. 98% chance of the 9th overruling . The case could be teed-up for the 2024 election cycle spin machines.

    1. LYING TROLL ALERT!!

      You Trolls are so easy to spot… you couch and conceal your lies about half way down an otherwise reasonable comment:

      “opening sentence was an inflammatory analogy and opening that overshadowed the well reasoned and detailed trial record and legal analysis of the opinion. Politicians, media, activists real the first sentence and were so outraged they couldn’t comprehend or intellectually appreciate the balance of the remaining 97 pages of the opinion. ”

      thats called ATTACKING THE MESSENGER.

      It is not relevant what biased, uneducated and hysterical fools in the MEDIA think and certainly deliberately dishonest of you to attempt to falsely project that as a fault of the Judge.

      Sorry, Commie.

      1. O have never been mistaken for a commie. I am normally accused of being too conservative. My point was more with regards to the style of writing and how to explain legal reasoning and arguments. The use of an analogy wasn’t rhetorically needed when the statute in question was a perfect example for the legal analysis. Win the argument and put forward sound legal analysis. Everything beyond that is dicta.

  15. Are AR-15s used as patrol rifles?

    1. Often. Why?

    2. AR-15 pattern rifles are frequently used as ‘patrol rifles’ by law enforcement, where they’ve mostly supplanted the role of the pump-action shotgun. This is a good thing. Rifles are far more accurate than either handguns or shotguns, with a much greater effective engagement range than either, and much more destructive than the former. I.e., they require fewer shots to stop a deadly threat.

      1. AND….

        you forgot the “and” in the rush to sound like an expert.

        AR round 3500 fps, goes thru three houses. Carries WAY too far to use in a city.

        1. While I agree the AR (or any rifle really) has too great a distance to use in a city without an effective backstop of some sort (knowing your target and what’s beyond is IS a fundamental rule of firearms) it absolutely does not “go through three houses”

          1. I have this retard muted for a reason.

            For the rest of you, the distance a handgun bullet is still lethal is not appreciably different than the distance a rifle bullet is still lethal. Both are on the order of a mile or two. Yeah, the ’06 bullet makes that 3-4 miles. It doesn’t make a real-world difference: they both have the potential of killing people well the fuck away when you shoot either of them into the air. Ask that idiot Oklahoma policeman who killed a kid a few hundred yards away, when he tried Tackleberry’ing a snake out of a tree with his service pistol. He got his manslaughter conviction expunged, BTW.

            Anyway, and there are plenty of places to read the research about this for yourselves—I like the BoxOTruth, but there are places with greater scientific rigor—both handgun bullets and rifle bullets will penetrate gleefully through most residential construction. Properly selected, high-speed rifle bullets will penetrate only as much, or a bit less, than most handgun bullets. LE often uses “barrier-blind” ammunition, which isn’t as friendly as more frangible bullets, but nevertheless the rifle bullet isn’t going to behave like that Korn video you might have watched.

            1. Referring to Dave as the ‘tard; not you, Kevin.

            2. What? A .30-06’s effective range is not 3-4 miles.

              And, yes, a handgun bullet’s effective range is far shorter than a rifle.

              Do you own any firearms?

              1. The range the bullet can go, and still kill someone at the end of it. Which, for an ’06 of typical size and velocity, is indeed in the multi-mile range. Though it’s going to be a “To whom it may concern…” type of shot. Which is why there are warning labels pointing such out on the side of commercially purchased ammunition.

                “Effective range”, which I’m going to define as, ‘I can actually hit who I’m aiming at,’ is of course going to be a lot less. .Mil, point target range for the GI M2 ball 30-06 cartridge is ballpark 800 yards or so. I wouldn’t want to have to make that shot, with those sights. NM Garand, on a KD range, sure.

                Still a lot longer than a handgun, Austin PD Sergeant Adam Johnson aside. (With one hand! The other was holding his horse’s reins. LOL.)

                Anyway, yes; I own several firearms. Just got done losing the bruise from reacquainting myself with my .270 the other day.

                Your lack of reading comprehension is not my problem.

                1. You clearly don’t own any firearms.

                  I just got done cleaning my Weatherby Mark V (custom build) chambered in .270 Weatherby Magnum.

                  You have a boatload of generalizations written above. I could clearly comprehend that.

                  A .30-06 is not just a caliber, it has a bullet weight to it, bullet design, amount of powder in the cartridge. And all of that shit is used to determine muzzle velocity and subsequently kinetic energy (the shit that actually kills you).

                  A 180-grain, boat-tail .30-06 coming out of a Winchester white box would hit the ground well before 800 yards if you fired the gun level. Kinetic energy dramatically drops off at 1000 yards mostly due to a loss of velocity due to bullet weight and drag.

                  It annoys the crap out of me when people make sweeping generalizations about firearms. It just makes you look stupid.

                  Oh, and for the record, if a .270 bruises your arm, you’re a fucking pussy.

                  1. *If* you fired the gun level, yes. He talked about someone firing into the air. A .30-06 at full ballistic arc will absolutely go several miles.

                    *You’re* the one who first used the term “effective range”, where Gray Jay was talking about lethal capacity range.

                    He also mentioned *explicitly* .30-06 M2 ball, which makes your comment about how “”

                    1. Goddammit.

                      Your comment about how “A .30-06 is not just a caliber, it has a bullet weight to it, bullet design, amount of powder in the cartridge.” something that was already addressed.

                      If you’re going to be an asshole, at least bother to read the comments you’re going to be an asshole to first, so you don’t look like a complete fucktard.

                      And 5k rounds is amateur numbers. I have more 7.62 NATO than that alone.

                2. Oh, and of the 5,000 rounds of various caliber ammo I have right now (.22 LR, .223, 5.56, .380, .40 S&W, .45 ACP, .30-06, .308, and .270 Weatherby Magnum, 20GA and 12 GA shells) NONE of them say ANYTHING about me shooting someone a mile away.

                  Stop making shit up.

        2. 3500 fps would be a rather hot load; I load all of my ammo [and thankfully stocked on supplies over the preceding years in anticipation of what we’ve experienced over this past year] and keep the velocity to around 2200-2300 fps; much more accurate in that range. And you can also use frangible bullets that will break apart on the first impact.

          1. Yeah, 3500 FPS is starting to sniff .22-250 territory, not .223/5.56. Which is FWIW, absolutely amazing on things like AR500, with the right loading. Speed kills, when it comes to armor.

            The point remains, aimed single (or double) rifle shots are less lethal for everyone else, and more likely to stop a deadly threat, than relying on a magazine’s worth of pistol fire, which is the usual alternative. And if we’re bitching about stray rounds, then the rifle is near-infinitely better than the buckshot spewing shotgun it replaces. Though someone catching a full pattern of buckshot is usually a fight-stopper right then. The problem, and it’s only partially ameliorated by things like Flite-Control LE buck, is that the pattern spreads, and often the BG doesn’t catch all of the pellets. They have to go somewhere…

            1. Agree; it all goes somewhere, and in this case less is definitely better.

        3. I assume most criminals will stop what they are doing when they see an Ar-15 pointed at them. City or suburb. Defensive gun use doesn’t always require taking the shot.

          1. Kyle Rittenhouse did too. He was wrong.

            1. But he did stop them. And it was the assailants choice to take it to that level.

              1. Bet the next person sees Kyle Rittenhouse with an AR-15 doesn’t try to take it away from him.

                1. I’ll take that bet, as it’ll likely be a police officer sending him to prison. Which will be a travesty.

    3. The decision goes into that and the fact the ammo cops use breaks up when going through walls, as does most commonly used .223 ammo, so it’s not overly dangerous in a suburban defensive use.

  16. Get woke! In the 21st century:

    The purpose of government is to promote and enable desired feelings, especially among the emotionally oppressed.

    Some people feel sad just thinking about guns. And mean looking guns make them feel sadder.

    Thus government has a mandate to restrict or eliminate guns, starting with the meanest ones.

    1. As a commenter posted above:

      “In their Highland Park decision the 7th circuit wrote:

      “If a ban on semi‐
      automatic guns and large‐capacity magazines reduces the
      perceived risk from a mass shooting, and makes the public
      feel safer as a result, that’s a substantial benefit.”

      What you said.

  17. Some day the profile of California Judge Benitez will be on Mount Rushmore

    1. I would like to thank so, but that will require a very different country from what we live in today; most likely a country separate from the one will now live under.

    2. Kamala Harris got mounted in D.C.

  18. Because we have the right to keep and bear arms. Next.

  19. “Despite all these decrees, Benitez noted, the AWCA has not had an observable effect on the frequency of mass shootings involving ‘assault weapons,’ meaning ‘California’s experiment has been a failure.’

    The impact of the federal ‘assault weapon’ ban that expired in 2004 was similarly unimpressive. President Joe Biden nevertheless wants to try this experiment again. The question is whether the Supreme Court will let him.”

    The real metric is control not reducing unjustified shootings. A click or three on the Ratchet Effect’s ratcheting us toward authoritarianism is all that these authoritarians seek from gun control. If you doubt this note that with the Republicans’ swing toward authoritarianism came proposal after proposal from Trump for gun control, in diametric opposition to the consistent pre-Trump Republican resistance to new gun control and support of the AWB sunset. It’s not about the guns. It’s about the control.

    “Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.”
    ~ Robert A. Heinlein

  20. When sullum stays off the orange man meth he makes sense.

  21. I thought Benitez was very creative citing Miller’s holding, which has been augmented but not overruled, that only arms suitable for the militia are protected. He found that Modern Sporting Rifles are very suitable for the militia, as well as being suitable for self defense in the home.

    That was to rebut the assertion that assault rifles are weapons of war and thus unprotected.

  22. I have a few pistols and a revolvers. One thing I’ve never heard as a possible solution, is outlawing the sales of assembled large ammunition. If you want to assemble your own bullets go for it. I think a lot of the people that go on shooting sprees aren’t dedicated enough to learn the process, and pay for the equipment.

    1. “Here’s Why California’s ‘Assault Weapon’ Ban Is Unconstitutional”

      A2.

    2. This wouldn’t help. Shooters would use substitute weapons. Like handguns or PCCs. It would also motivate a large contingent of black market reloaders to manufacture and sell the regulated ammo to criminals. Plus regulating by ammunition type would create a maze of confusing rules, exceptions and edge cases. There are already a bunch of odd cartridges that defy classification, like FN 5.7×28. There would undoubtedly be more in short order.

      1. Stupidity. There are over 20 BILLION rounds in private hands.

        What theyre aiming for is confiscation. The ban horse done left the gatrle in 2009

    3. “. If you want to assemble your own bullets go for it.”

      There is no such thing.

    4. “…One thing I’ve never heard as a possible solution,..”

      Your “solution” is off looking for a problem.

  23. The banning of “assault-style” weapons is stupid and ineffective. Real assault rifles, the M-16 and military AK-47 family of weapons, are capable of fully automatic fire (ie. they are machine guns) and are already illegal under the Firearms Control Act. An AR-15 is NOT capable of fully automatic fire and fires the same round as a common .223 varmint rifle. The law bans them because the LOOK like a machine gun. My bother used to own a Bricklin which featured an exotic looking fiberglass body over a Volkswagen Beetle chassis. It looked fast but was still just a Beetle. The AR-15 looks like an M-16 but it is just a semi-automatic rifle like any other. By the AWCA’s logic, we should ban Bricklins because they look like they are speeding.

  24. OK, supposing someone uses their legal assault rifle to defend themselves against rioters torching their city. Like Kyle Rittenhouse did in Kenosha. You suddenly find yourself being smeared by the regime media and prosecuted by the state.

    Why isn’t REASON defending Kyle and many more people like him who used firearms to defend themselves during 2020’s mostly peaceful looting, arson and mob assaults?

    You’d think that REASON would be rallying behind Kyle and other 2nd Amendment practitioners, but a survey of your website shows this is not the case.

    Why so?

  25. Democrats hate guns almost as much as they hate Trump and free speech.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.