No announcement yet.

AKs Not Protected By 2nd Amendment Says CA Court

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • AKs Not Protected By 2nd Amendment Says CA Court

    AKs Not Protected By 2nd Amendment Says CA Court

    By Brian Anderson on October 22, 2013

    On Monday the California 4th District Court Of Appeals ruled that 2nd Amendment does not apply to semi-automatic “AK” type rifles. They opined, “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, 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.”

    The court based its decision largely on the precedent set in the case of US v. Miller which allowed the banning of sawed-off shotguns on the grounds they had no military or civilian purpose. The court stated, “the ban on AK series rifles does not impinge on rights protected by the Second Amendment because assault weapons are at least as dangerous and unusual as the short-barreled shotgun.”

    The case stems from the ultra-confusing Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989, which banned “AR” and “AK” series weapons. Subsequent court rulings said that the state couldn’t ban a type of weapon and must name the forbidden guns specifically by make and model. CA then adopted a list of weapons that were unwelcomed, but the manufactures simply renamed their rifles to get around the list. Finally in 2000 the state banned features like detachable magazines and pistol grips to keep these “assault weapons” illegal.

    The defendant, William Zondorak, was busted with an AK-type weapon that appeared on the list of banned guns. Even though his rifle is identical to ones that are sold legally in California, because it was on the list, he’s in deep dog-doo. Any AK or AR receiver that is on the list, even if the gun has been reconfigured to meet CA standards, is still banned.

    As if the California Assault Weapons Ban wasn’t stupid enough, this court ruling brings the state’s level of intelligence to an all-time low. First, they are saying that an AK has no lawful purpose such as hunting or self-defense. I don’t remember the part of the 2nd Amendment that restricts firearms ownership to these two usages. In any case an AK variant would be a great varmint gun and adequate for medium-sized game. It would have no problem ventilating someone stupid enough to enter a house without a back-stage pass. It has legitimate purposes.

    The second piece of idiocy handed down in this ruling is naming the AK series as an “unusual” weapon. What they are trying to do is establish the AK as a weapon that is not in common usage. The Supreme Court ruled in DC v. Heller that guns in common use cannot be banned by the government. AK variants are the most common rifles on the planet. They are not rare in any way, shape, or form, even here in the United States where millions of them are in the hands of private citizens.

    It is interesting that the Appeals Court stated that citizens have a right to carry a firearm in California, because nothing could be further from the truth. This is a “may issue” state meaning that most folks do not stand a doughnut’s chance in Oprah’s vicinity of ever getting a concealed weapons permit. Open carry of any firearm is completely illegal as well. I wonder if these judges just f*cked up and inadvertently re-legalized the carrying of guns in the state.
    More at the link.

    "Alexa, slaughter the fatted calf."

  • #2
    What a very poor understanding of the 2nd Amendment!

    The first Amendment never mentioned the Internet and therefore it is not included because one cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded hall. Right?
    "Faith is nothing but a firm assent of the mind : which, if it be regulated, as is our duty, cannot be afforded to anything but upon good reason, and so cannot be opposite to it."
    -John Locke

    "It's all been melded together into one giant, authoritarian, leftist scream."


    • #3
      Great, so, if someone shoots at me with a Derringer from 100ft., they won't be charged with assault with a deadly weapon because the weapon was not an assault weapon, notwithstanding they assaulted you with it.