California replies in 9th Circuit billy club case

1
Other arms.

Fouts v. Bonta

https://twitter.com/gunpolicy/status/15 ... HErozBIB3g
Firearms Policy Coalition
@gunpolicy
California filed a response to the letter today, saying that "billies, including police batons, are particularly susceptible to criminal use and are appropriately reserved for trained law enforcement personnel."
Case:
https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circu ... 9/21-56039

Background:
https://mslegal.org/cases/fouts-v-bonta/
California, for instance, has, for more than a century, imposed a near-universal ban on the possession of certain club-type weapons, including so-called “billy clubs,” exempting only police and certain security guards from owning them. This, in our view, is an unconstitutional infringement of the Second Amendment. But the district court refused to even evaluate the law because, in the Ninth Circuit, courts automatically consider any “longstanding” law to be constitutional. The Ninth Circuit claims that they are applying Heller, but in reality, Heller implies that certain “longstanding” regulations may be presumed to be constitutional. The presumption must be rebuttable. Without allowing individuals to seek to prove even longstanding regulations are not constitutional the Ninth Circuit may inadvertently rubber-stamp longstanding infringements on people’s rights, rather than uphold constitutional regulations.

Now two military veterans, Russell Fouts and Tan Miguel Tolentino, are suing California’s attorney general to challenge this unconstitutionally “longstanding” ban. MSLF’s Center to Keep and Bear Arms has filed a brief supporting Russell and Tan, arguing that the mere longevity of such a law is no guarantor of its constitutionality or legitimacy.

Re: California replies in 9th Circuit billy club case

9
Bingo.

One of the oddities of the CCW revolution has been the exclusive focus on firearms when many states restricted blades, nunchuks, knuckledusters or other concealable weapons. Many were banned or restricted under the logic that - being quiet and concealable - they could be used in crime with stealth and impunity. When I got my CHL, Ohio law was so vague about what constituted concealed weaponry that even x-acto type blades had been held to be lethal weapons under established precedent, and plastic key-ring devices that could fit over knuckles were outlawed. Pistols and revolvers had a particularly privileged place in state law concerning carry.

Fortunately, that has been rectified. State law now holds that edged tools of any variety are not weapons unless used as such. Just like hammers, axe-handles or bricks. Seems reasonable to me. Of course, we don't have preemption, so your local laws may vary.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron