Two decidedly different pieces of news regarding legal rulings hit the digital newsroom over the weekend. Both set the stage for what are likely to be favorable rulings for 2A advocates. One, however, was a bit of a sour grape for what was supposed to be a day of celebration.
The bad news, at least for now, came from Doug Ritter of Knife Rights. According to Ritter, he was preparing to send out his Happy National Knife Day release when a California court (surprise) turned his good wishes sour.
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California issued a questionable ruling regarding that state’s ban on automatic knives (switchblades in California, because that’s more scary sounding) with a blade 2-inches or longer. The court, while stating that California officials had failed to make the case for a historical justification on the ban. Then, with a disregard for the Bruen and Heller rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court, found the ban constitutional.
Two issues, Ritter points out: first, the court held that under the plain text analysis required by Bruen, automatic opening knives are not “arms” under the Second Amendment. The District Court then went on to say that only arms that were “in common use for self defense” are considered arms under the Second Amendment.
As Ritter caustically pointed out, “There’s no mention of ‘self defense’ or ‘in common use’ in the plain text of the Second Amendment. To call the Court’s decision irrational and ludicrous,” Ritter submits, “is being nice.”
But, he points out, “That’s not all bad for us.” What is bad for Knife Rights is the inevitable appeal process means more dollars spent fighting rulings that don’t just lack judicial standing, they’re absent common reason. But, having defeated bad legislation in 31 states (and counting), Ritter and his organization are all too familiar with the two steps forward, one step back legal processes.
Meanwhile, on another Second Amendment front, two national 2A Groups are calling on the Supreme Court to hear their case challenging Maryland’s “Assault Weapons Ban of 2013” after a lower court ruled the ban constitutional.
The Firearms Policy Coalition asked the high court to hear Snope v. Brown (alternatively Bianchi v. Frosh). That’s after the Richmond-based Fourth Circuit Court upheld the ban in a 10-5 decision earlier this month. That decision said Maryland’s ban on certain semi-automatic rifles and pistols “fits comfortably within our nation’s tradition of firearms regulation.”
The Second Amendment Foundation joined the FPC in asking the Supreme Court to review the Fourth Circuit’s ruling. According to the SAF’s Alan Gottlieb, there’s a very solid reasoning behind the request. “They are arguing the arms protected under the Second Amendment are limited to certain state-approved firearms.” He then points out — correctly — that interpretation takes a right and morphs it into a “government-regulated privilege.”
This isn’t the first time the high court has been petitioned in the case. This is the SAF’s third time.
Separately, Brandon Combs of the FPC says the case gives the Supreme Court the opportunity to resolve what he called “exceptionally important issues.” Those include what arms the Second Amendment actually covers, and more importantly, would end what he calls “immoral and abusive gun control regimes.”
In the Maryland ruling, District Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III opined that the AR-15, the Barrett .50, and ‘gangster-style guns’ are not protected by the Constitution.
The reason? Due to their “excessively dangerous” nature.
In a dissent, Judge Julius Richardson countered that “The Second Amendment is not a second-class right subject to the whimsical discretion of federal judges.”
While I agree with Richardson’s dissent, I would take exception with his use of “whimsical.” It seems to me the decision is more capricious than whimsical, but I’m neither a legal scholar nor a linguist.
When you choose to live in a tyrannical state ot nation you can’t expect to have freedom. That’s why 1000s of people risked life and limb to escape East Germany before the Wall came down. Escaping Commiefornia is a much easier proposition all it requires is to do so. Nothing is keeping you there except your own choices.
“There’s no mention of ‘self defense’ or ‘in common use’ in the plain text of the Second Amendment.”
Hmmmm…not in those specific words but its there by use of the word ‘arms’ which means, in Bruen and other SCOTUS cases, basically ANYTHING a person may or can use for defense…a definition from which are derived the ‘common use’ and ‘self defense’ terms in Bruen and other SCOTUS cases.
Don’t fall for the ‘not arms’ of ‘not in common use’ arguments. They are false arguments playing on wording not being specifically spelled out in the 2A. ANYTHING can be ‘arms’ and is ‘in common use’ if it can be used for self defense.
Do we now also point to the first amendment to say computer use to express speech by the news media is not covered by the first amendment because the 1st doesn’t have text that specifically mentions computers as being in common use and a means to express speech?
Goofball decision by the district court; relying primarily on a DISTRICT court decision (Rupp v. Bonta) that similarly ignored Bruen and is almost certain to be reversed.
“Forget it Jake. It’s Californiatown.”