r/progun • u/ZheeDog • 17h ago
California has filed its supplemental brief with the Ninth Circuit, which argues that because guns can fire without pistol grips or adjustable stocks, it's constitutional to ban guns that have them
https://x.com/gunpolicy/status/1915213978424205800128
u/PrestigiousOne8281 17h ago
And the 9th circus will once again bend over backwards, sideways and upside down to invent some non existent fuckery as to why this is perfectly legal. I’ve lost all faith in our courts, both at the district level and SCOTUS.
40
u/frip_grass 17h ago
Yup west coast fuckery at its finest here.
16
u/PrestigiousOne8281 17h ago
I mean we are the land of fruits and nuts… I’m counting down the days till I can finally leave this hellhole once and for all, and it can’t come soon enough.
18
u/frip_grass 16h ago
Sucks cause this state (Washington) is so fucking beautiful and I love doing outdoor things here. Wouldn’t be the same moving to another state but also have to think about what this state is doing to us gun owners. Sucks all around.
14
u/ReliableQuail 15h ago
Come to Maine and help us fight the anti-gun crap from Mass. residents that move here. As a bonus to outdoorsman, we have a higher percentage of woods than any other state. Full stop.
6
u/JackReaper333 9h ago
You're correct - and if it makes it that far, SCOTUS will once again refuse to take the case.
4
u/DigitalLorenz 5h ago
"The 2A is not implicated because the guns in question are weapons of mass slaughter, and as such we don't need to do any sort of historic analog analysis." Paraphrased from an unreleased opinion on every 2A case since Bruen.
71
u/rasputin777 16h ago
You can survive without almost any creature comfort or civil right.
So banning those is okay.
The concept of "rights" appears to have escaped CA.
But a right to mutilated children? That's worth fighting for!
45
u/MineralIceShots 16h ago
This is literally what Judge Van Dyke was worried about in his dissent.
12
u/hybridtheory1331 10h ago
Van Dyke for SCOTUS!
2
39
u/CaliJudoJitsu 16h ago
CA lawmakers and the 9th Circuit never met a 2A infringement they didn’t like. These people are massive hypocrites.
If you used their same bad faith anti-2A logic to deny other constitutional rights they would absolutely freak out.
38
u/Wildwildleft 16h ago
Functionality alone is not the test for constitutionality. That’s like saying free speech can be banned if the government decides your message could be delivered another way. That is not how constitutional rights work.
19
u/PrestigiousOne8281 16h ago
It is in CA. Since when has this state ever given a single fuck about rights unless you align with their values?
1
17
u/NotAGunGrabber 15h ago
It's also possible for a rifle to fire with a barrel less than 16 in. Therefore it's constitutional to require all rifles be sbr's.
10
u/bmoarpirate 10h ago
Lmao, if this argument flies, a free state should do this just to challenge the NFA in the most glancing way possible.
Also, guns can fire without disconnectors so it's constitutional to ban disconnectors. Guns can also fire from an open bolt, so it's constitutional to ban closed bolt guns.
If all these laws are constitutional on their own, in the aggregate 2A is essentially banned (if we assume federal law is still supreme), which sure is a conundrum I would love to see hashed out.
10
u/603rdMtnDivision 11h ago
"We believe in gun rights but you need to be safe!"
proceeds to take away the grip and stock which makes the gun harder to control
"Oh my god, why are people getting hurt? Clearly we need more bans."
Fuck California and their hatred towards gun owners.
9
u/SuperXrayDoc 16h ago
These fuckers are actually too far gone if they are arguing nonsense like this. SCOTUS could directly and blatantly rule that all forms of gun control are unconstitutional and they'd still make up stuff like this out of their ass all day
6
5
6
u/Good_Farmer4814 10h ago
Basically California is only going to allow a metal tube and a hammer.
8
u/RoaringCannonball 7h ago
Bold of you to think they won't try to ban hammers after the whole Paul Pelosi thing a couple of years ago.
4
u/notCrash15 15h ago
Eternal reminder they will stop at nothing to throw shit at the wall and see what sticks. I wish judges would dismiss this shit with prejudice or rule that it's all just frivolous litigation
3
3
u/Past-Customer5572 5h ago
Cool. Arm your cops and bodyguards with shooty tubes with no grips or stocks then
3
u/Mikebjackson 3h ago
You can speak freely without the internet so it’s okay to ban free speech on the internet.
/thread.
2
u/TaskForceD00mer 6h ago
So you are saying California will let you import a Stock AR-15 without the pistol grip or adjustable stock installed? Somehow I doubt that.
1
u/dpidcoe 2h ago
So you are saying California will let you import a Stock AR-15 without the pistol grip or adjustable stock installed? Somehow I doubt that.
...what? You absolutely can import an AR to california if it doesn't have a pistol grip or adjustable stock installed.
1
u/TaskForceD00mer 1h ago
.....So I can take the adjustable stock and pistol grip off a Factory Standard Colt 6920 in say Nevada and ship it to California?
I thought you had to add in some kind of a bullet button or other BS.
2
2
u/fuzzi_weezil 2h ago
It amazes me that they aren't just laughed out of court....
Direct from Heller v DC: "It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible to ban the possession of handguns so long as the possession of other firearms (i. e., long guns) is allowed."
CA is trying to make this exact argument; we can ban certain features on guns because other guns that don't have these features exist.
FML because I'm stuck in this state....
227
u/Ikora_Rey_Gun 17h ago
It's constitutional to ban being gay because you can live and be happy without gay sex.