Same Old Shot ‘Em Up

The U.S.D.C. for the Southern District of California (per Benitez, J.) has ruled that California’s statute outlawing guns that hold more than ten rounds is unconstitutional.

I have not read the entire 86 pages of the opinion, but it seems to be based upon outdated and questionable scholarship (see footnote 7 at slip op. 3) and, rather disgustingly, suggests that German Jews could have avoided their fate at the hands of the Nazis if only they had guns (see footnote 13 at slip op. 13-14).

The decision is, at its core, an extended ideological screed rather than a judicial opinion. Just look at the first paragraph of the three paragraph footnote 33 (of a total of 69 footnotes) that begins on slip op. 22 and runs on to slip op. 23:

Artificial limits will eventually lead to disarmament. It is an insidious plan to disarm the populace and it depends on for its success a subjective standard of “necessary” lethality. It does not take the imagination of Jules Verne to predict that if all magazines over 10 rounds are somehow eliminated from California, the next mass shooting will be accomplished with guns holding only 10 rounds. To reduce gun violence, the state will close the newly christened 10-round “loophole” and use it as a justification to outlaw magazines holding more than 7 rounds. The legislature will determine that no more than 7 rounds are “necessary.” Then the next mass shooting will be accomplished with guns holding 7 rounds. To reduce the new gun violence, the state will close the 7-round “loophole” and outlaw magazines holding more than 5 rounds determining that no more than 5 rounds is “necessary.” And so it goes, until the only lawful firearm law-abiding responsible citizens will be permitted to possess is a single-shot handgun. Or perhaps, one gun, but no ammunition. Or ammunition issued only to persons deemed trustworthy.

Emphasis added.

3 thoughts on “Same Old Shot ‘Em Up”

  1. If I own a gun, I must be allowed to shoot anyone I want to shoot; it’s in the Constitution. I have a right to self-defense, as old as the Bible, as old as the Magna Carta. Now, if I have the right to self-defense, don’t I have the right to decide when self-defense requires that I kill someone or something? Of course I do.

    Just think what a different standard other than my determination that someone needs killing would mean in real life, not your fancy ivory tower. First, the overweening State will say I can only kill when necessary to prevent myself from getting killed. A lot of you pusillanimous pointy-heads will think that’s reasonable. Well, maybe it is, in itself, but we all know that the State, always looking for ways to imprison undesirables, will not stop there. Now the camel’s nose is in the tent and you know what he’s coming for. It’s a very short walk from “can’t kill except in self-defense” to “can’t kill when the Nazis show up at your door.”

    Will some people abuse the “privilege” of killing anyone with impunity? Of course, that’s what people do. There’s nothing you can do about human nature, as evidenced by all the people who commit what’s currently called “murder” even though it’s against the law.

    But, here’s the beauty part. You have a gun. If someone wants to kill you, you kill them first. Even better, if you think someone wants to kill you, you kill them before they can even get their hands on a gun, maybe even before they know they want to kill you. Your chances of surviving an armed conflict are definitely greater if you shoot first, especially if you take your potential assailant by surprise, such as when he’s sitting in a restaurant or walking down the street appearing to mind his own business, when he’s really plotting your demise.

    Some might say that “slippery slope” reasoning can be used to invalidate any law. Bingo! Why would we need laws if everyone has a gun? I rest my case for Constitutional Homicide.

    1. And what’s this whole thing about banning machine guns? A first step on the road to leaving law abiding citizens with only rubber knives.

  2. I think one can assume there has been, is, and will be a push to ban almost all gun ownership. It had already been done in Washington, DC prior to the Heller decision. 10 rounds seems like a reasonable limit for self defense, but it’s not something a mass murderer bent on terrorism is going to comply with.

Comments are closed.