California's Court of Appeals ruled yesterday that the 2nd Amendment does not protect semi-automatic firearms.
To get everyone up to speed here's a quick history:
California resident William Zondorak was arrested for and charged with possession of an assault weapon unde California law. Everyone agreed that Zondorak "knowingly possessed an operable semi-automatic CN Romarm AK series rifle" and he waived jury trial.
On appeal, Zondorak does not contest that he knowingly possessed an operable semi-automatic AK series rifle, or that the rifle is within the ban of the Assault Weapons Control Act (AWCA). Instead, he asserts the trial court erred when it denied his motion to dismiss because he argued that the California AWCA was unconstitutional and violated his Federal Second Amendment rights.
Now that we're up to speed, anyone want to make bets on what the California Court of Appeals had to say? Everyone who thinks they supported the Second Amendment rights of their citizens can... well, you can leave because you should know better.
The judges did review the Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller
(2008) 554 U.S. 570 (Heller) and specified the section discussing what weapons are covered:
"The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms 'in common use at the time' for lawful purposes like self-defense. 'In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.' [Citation.] Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment's operative clause ['the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed'] furthers the purpose announced in its preface ['[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State'].We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns."
What did the California Court of Appeals decide to do with that information? They took a big steaming poop on it. Somehow, the Court decided that it didn't matter what Heller said because:
We construe Heller as standing for the proposition that the right secured by the Second Amendment is "not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" (Heller, supra, 554 U.S. at p. 626), but is instead the right to possess and carry weapons typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes such as hunting or self-defense.
You read that right, the California Court of Appeals has decided that the only reason you need a gun is for hunting or self defense and that no other purpose is acceptable.
Don't even get me started on the Court calling AR and AK platform weapons unusual and uncommon.[b] If AR's and AK's are uncommon why millions upon millions been sold inside the United States alone?
For the full text of the ruling, go to: http://www.scribd.com/doc...-Assault-Weapons-10-21-13