California State court rules semiautomatic firearms not protected by 2nd Amd

This is a state court decision, not a federal court. It likely won't have much impact on the national debate, but for the moment it means that California can continue to abuse its gun owner population with impunity. The decision is based on the claim that semi-auto firearms are "dangerous and unusual" (or at least as much so as the short-barreled shotgun in the Miller case).

This is flawed for a number of reasons. Semi-auto rifles are not especially dangerous when used as intended, beyond the danger inherent in any firearm; millions of people own and use them safely, including for self-defense. So-called "assault weapons" are no more dangerous than any other semi-auto rifle, and often substantially less so due to their use of medium-powered ammunition. True assault rifles, ie machine guns, are already heavily regulated and are never used in crime when legally owned.

Hat tip to Of Arms and the Law.

This entry was published Mon Oct 28 12:33:52 CDT 2013 by TriggerFinger and last updated 2013-10-28 12:33:51.0. [Tweet]

comments powered by Disqus

Subscribe to Atom Feed

I am not a lawyer, and nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice.

This site is run on custom blog software and is being actively developed. Please be forgiving of errors.

This website is an Amazon affiliate and will receive financial compensation for products purchased from Amazon through links on this site.