It was an obvious decision based on the precedents of Miller and Heller.elliseamos wrote:My post is solely about how silly the judges statement was and how his track record on guns made this an obvious decision from him.simple schoolboy wrote:Are ellis et al under the impression that CAs Assault Weapon Ban prevents people from owning AR pattern weapons? All it really does is limit what muzzle device you can use (not a huge deal) and requires you to use weird grips and fixed stocks. You comply with that and you have a dumber looking, but still very capable rifle.
If this is upheld, Californians won't be mocked for the less ergonomic plastic bits on their guns. Thats is. Thats the implication here.
There isn't even constructive posession. Own whatever plastic bits and muzzle devices that you want, just don't install certain combinations at the same time.
He also undermined the likely 9th Circuits application of Intermediate scrunity, which shouldn't even be appropriate for a fundemental right like this.
The State made a piss poor case of establishing a compelling state interest, arguing that they prefer people defending themselves to be less accurate, in addition to relying on a raft of dubious statistics.
The 9th will likely slap it down because they're the 9th, but he anticipated and addressed most likely counter arguments.
If Miller isn't still good law, then his ruling can largely be undercut. I don't know what the general consensus on Miller is, and was hoping GH could enlighten us. Heller seems to rely on Miller, with the new standard that weapons in common use cannot be prohibited, as opposed to the ruling in Miller that uncommon weapons without Militia utility can be banned.
