The 9th Circuit Judge explains the "Heller," test so that even anti-gun extremists can understand it...

[2aguy]

Reading through the ruling declaring the California Assault Weapon Ban unConstitutional.....the Judge explains the "Heller Test," ........

A. The Heller Test

With these principles firmly established, it is time to put the constitutionality of AWCA to the test. Two tests will be used:

(1) the Heller test; and

(2) the Ninth Circuit’s two-step levels-of-scrutiny test.


The Heller test is a test that any citizen can understand. Heller asks whether a law bans a firearm that is commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. It is a hardware test.20


Heller draws a distinction between firearms commonly owned for lawful purposes and unusual arms adapted to unlawful uses as well as arms solely useful for military purposes. 21

As applied to AWCA, the Heller test asks: is a modern rifle commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for a lawful purpose?

For the AR-15 type rifle the answer is “yes.”

The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and keep the popular AR-15 rifle and its many variants do so for lawful purposes, including selfdefense at home. Under Heller, that is all that is needed. Using the easy to understand Heller test, it is obvious that the California assault weapon ban is unconstitutional. Under the Heller test, judicial review can end right here.22
-------

At the core this is a simple case. Like the cases of Heller and McDonald, here the government bans an entire class of very popular hardware -- firearms that are lawful under federal law and under the laws of most states and that are commonly held by lawabiding citizens for lawful purposes. Under no level of heightened scrutiny can the law survive.
========

For female gun buyers in 2018, after a handgun, a modern rifle was the next most popular choice. Id. at 24.

https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/Decision%20--%20Miller%2020210604.pdf

If you want another good breakdown...read this Judges ruling against the California Magazine Ban.......he explains that as well...

 

[2aguy]

And this....

4. More Popular than Stun Guns

The Supreme Court implied that as few as 200,000 stun guns owned nationwide by law abiding citizens is a sufficient number to show common ownership and receive constitutional protection. Caetano, 577 U.S., at 420 (Alito, J., and Thomas, J., concurring) (approximately 200,000 civilians owned stun guns as of 2009) (“While less popular than handguns, stun guns are widely owned and accepted as a legitimate means of self-defense across the country.”).


Based on the evidence presented, it can be confidently said that between at least 200,000 and perhaps 1,000,000 modern rifles are owned in California alone. Based on the lack of evidence at trial that these 200,000 to 1,000,000 California guns are often used in crime, it is reasonable to infer that most are owned by law-abiding citizens who use them only for lawful purposes. After handguns, modern rifles are probably the most popular firearms in America. They are quietly owned by millions of law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes ranging

 

[bodecea]

Now to get rid of the Reagan/NRA initiated Mulford Act.

 

[Donald H]

Guns are wots gud for killing librul-s little kids.

The NRA Song



Guns are neat, Guns are sweet
Guns the tool, what makes you cool.
Guns are fine, Guns are mine
Guns are things, that Jesus brings!
Guns for loonies, Guns for cons
Guns for Moonies, Guns for moms!
Guns are fun for everyone,
buy them up by the ton.
Guns for me, Guns for you,
Guns for nuts and children too!
Guns at home, Guns at work,
Guns at play, Guns berserk!
Tons and tons of great big Guns,
Are tons and tons of great big fun!
I’ve got Guns up my nose
‘tween my ears and by my toes.
I’m no fool, I’m so cool,
I take Guns to my school.
I take Guns to my car,
to the store and to the bar.
I got Guns in a drawer,
in my pocket and on the floor.
I got Guns on the wall,
behind the toilet and in the hall.
I got guns in my bed,
one is growing from my head!
Get a Gun and get it fast,
Gun-Gun shoot-shoot is a blast!​

 

[Moonglow]

Now to get rid of the Reagan/NRA initiated Mulford Act.

Are you sure they will turn on Reagan?

 

[bodecea]

Now to get rid of the Reagan/NRA initiated Mulford Act.

Are you sure they will turn on Reagan?

They've already turned on Reagan.

 

[2aguy]

To the anti-gun extremists....

5. Checkpoints

a. Checkpoint No. 1: burden of proof


Plaintiffs do not have to shoulder the burden of proving that they are entitled to enjoy Second Amendment rights. The command of the Amendment is that the right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed.” It follows that when a citizen complains in a facial challenge that the government is infringing, then it is the government that must carry the burden of justifying its restriction of Second Amendment rights. T


The Attorney General also objects that the state should not have the initial burden of proving a prohibited arm is not commonly possessed for lawful purposes. Defs. Supplemental Brief at 2. But this is exactly wrong.

The constitutional imperative is on the government to not infringe. The correct starting orientation is that no arm may be prohibited.


If a plaintiff challenges the government’s prohibition, it is on the government first to prove the banned arm is dangerous and unusual, and if not that it is not commonly possessed, or not commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens, or not commonly possessed for lawful purposes or militia readiness. If the state cannot so prove, the challenged prohibition must be struck down.
-------

Because the government bears the burden in the first instance and has not proven they are uncommon and dangerous, these arms are presumptively lawful to own.

 

[xband]

To the anti-gun extremists....

5. Checkpoints

a. Checkpoint No. 1: burden of proof


Plaintiffs do not have to shoulder the burden of proving that they are entitled to enjoy Second Amendment rights. The command of the Amendment is that the right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed.” It follows that when a citizen complains in a facial challenge that the government is infringing, then it is the government that must carry the burden of justifying its restriction of Second Amendment rights. T


The Attorney General also objects that the state should not have the initial burden of proving a prohibited arm is not commonly possessed for lawful purposes. Defs. Supplemental Brief at 2. But this is exactly wrong.

The constitutional imperative is on the government to not infringe. The correct starting orientation is that no arm may be prohibited.


If a plaintiff challenges the government’s prohibition, it is on the government first to prove the banned arm is dangerous and unusual, and if not that it is not commonly possessed, or not commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens, or not commonly possessed for lawful purposes or militia readiness. If the state cannot so prove, the challenged prohibition must be struck down.
-------

Because the government bears the burden in the first instance and has not proven they are uncommon and dangerous, these arms are presumptively lawful to own.

Legal mumbo jumbo but I like it.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Now to get rid of the Reagan/NRA initiated Mulford Act.

100% agree. That was Reagan and the NRA being racist motherfuckers. Repeal that bitch.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Now to get rid of the Reagan/NRA initiated Mulford Act.

Are you sure they will turn on Reagan?

Most people don't even know the whole story. When Reagan was governor of CA, he pushed for the Mulford Act ONLY because the Black Panthers were protesting with firearms. Forget that other groups had done the same. But, we can't have these negros exercising their constitutional rights. Fuck that.....BAN...

It's disgusting. You'll never see me calling for our black citizens to be disarmed. Many times, they need to protection the most.

 

[Moonglow]

Now to get rid of the Reagan/NRA initiated Mulford Act.

Are you sure they will turn on Reagan?

Most people don't even know the whole story. When Reagan was governor of CA, he pushed for the Mulford Act ONLY because the Black Panthers were protesting with firearms. Forget that other groups had done the same. But, we can't have these negros exercising their constitutional rights. Fuck that.....BAN...

It's disgusting. You'll never see me calling for our black citizens to be disarmed. Many times, they need to protection the most.

And later after Reagan was president he supported the Brady Bill did he not?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Now to get rid of the Reagan/NRA initiated Mulford Act.

Are you sure they will turn on Reagan?

Most people don't even know the whole story. When Reagan was governor of CA, he pushed for the Mulford Act ONLY because the Black Panthers were protesting with firearms. Forget that other groups had done the same. But, we can't have these negros exercising their constitutional rights. Fuck that.....BAN...

It's disgusting. You'll never see me calling for our black citizens to be disarmed. Many times, they need to protection the most.

And later after Reagan was president he supported the Brady Bill did he not?

Yes.

Reagan is the most overrated President in the history of our country. He only seemed great because Carter was lame and weak and Walter Mondale was a fucking joke.