Lokin4AReason
Well-Known Member
http://www.gunnews.com/aks-protected-2nd-amendment/
The People’s Republic of California has struck again. On the 21st of October, the 4th District court of Appeals has made the determination that AKs are not protected by the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Without question, the judges in California have decided that the 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply at all to its citizens. In this latest case the judges made the determination that AKs don’t serve a normal purpose, like hunting or self-defense.
This court of clowns used the Supreme Court case, US v Miller to justify their ruling. The Miller case established that saw-off shotguns had no protection under the 2nd Amendment because they lacked military or civilian purpose. This is a total misinterpretation of the Miller decision by the California court.
This case came about because of the arrest of William Zondorak. He was found in possession of a named style of AK, which were banned by the State of California in 1989. This law, the California Assault Weapons Ban, first tried to ban certain styles of rifles, but this was found to be illegal. Courts said that they had to ban specific models of firearms. So, the state came up with a huge list of banned firearms. Manufactures simply went around this law by renaming their weapons. Unfortunately for Zondorak, he had in his possession one of the listed models. The most ironic part is that this banned model is identical to AKs being sold in California under a different name.
The 4th District Court of Appeals ruled that AKs are “unusual.” This wording is important because it allows them to hide behind the Miller decision. There’s only one problem, the AK is about the least unusual firearm in the world. I have no idea how many AKs are in the United States, but it has to be in the hundreds of thousands if not millions. They also say in their ruling that the AK doesn’t have a hunting or self-defense purpose. They are wrong in this assertion as well since the AK can be used for hunting varmints and up to medium size game, and as for home defense, I’m sure many people use this platform to defend their homes. Even more important; where does the 2nd Amendment restrict the style of firearms because of their intended usage? The court is also ignoring the Heller decision in which the Supreme Court ruled that firearms in common usage could not be banned.
I’m not surprised by the court’s ruling. These judges are legislating from the bench and are doing a poor job. There’s no question that California wants to abolish the 2nd Amendment. They’re finding anyway they can to go around the constitution. The most interesting point in the ruling is when they said that citizens in California have the right to carry firearms. Does this create a problem for California? California is a may issue state when it comes to concealed carry, did they just rule that they should be shall issue? Either way, California’s gun administration is still screwed up and it doesn’t appear that this will be changing anytime soon.
The People’s Republic of California has struck again. On the 21st of October, the 4th District court of Appeals has made the determination that AKs are not protected by the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Without question, the judges in California have decided that the 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply at all to its citizens. In this latest case the judges made the determination that AKs don’t serve a normal purpose, like hunting or self-defense.
This court of clowns used the Supreme Court case, US v Miller to justify their ruling. The Miller case established that saw-off shotguns had no protection under the 2nd Amendment because they lacked military or civilian purpose. This is a total misinterpretation of the Miller decision by the California court.
This case came about because of the arrest of William Zondorak. He was found in possession of a named style of AK, which were banned by the State of California in 1989. This law, the California Assault Weapons Ban, first tried to ban certain styles of rifles, but this was found to be illegal. Courts said that they had to ban specific models of firearms. So, the state came up with a huge list of banned firearms. Manufactures simply went around this law by renaming their weapons. Unfortunately for Zondorak, he had in his possession one of the listed models. The most ironic part is that this banned model is identical to AKs being sold in California under a different name.
The 4th District Court of Appeals ruled that AKs are “unusual.” This wording is important because it allows them to hide behind the Miller decision. There’s only one problem, the AK is about the least unusual firearm in the world. I have no idea how many AKs are in the United States, but it has to be in the hundreds of thousands if not millions. They also say in their ruling that the AK doesn’t have a hunting or self-defense purpose. They are wrong in this assertion as well since the AK can be used for hunting varmints and up to medium size game, and as for home defense, I’m sure many people use this platform to defend their homes. Even more important; where does the 2nd Amendment restrict the style of firearms because of their intended usage? The court is also ignoring the Heller decision in which the Supreme Court ruled that firearms in common usage could not be banned.
I’m not surprised by the court’s ruling. These judges are legislating from the bench and are doing a poor job. There’s no question that California wants to abolish the 2nd Amendment. They’re finding anyway they can to go around the constitution. The most interesting point in the ruling is when they said that citizens in California have the right to carry firearms. Does this create a problem for California? California is a may issue state when it comes to concealed carry, did they just rule that they should be shall issue? Either way, California’s gun administration is still screwed up and it doesn’t appear that this will be changing anytime soon.
Last edited:
