TLDR: There’s a court case in CA regarding the constitutionality of an assault weapons ban and this ruling was that during the course of the case that the law should remain enforced as it had previously been.
This particular ruling isn’t a final ruling on the matter.
Thank god we don’t have to rely on thoughts and prayers.
Odd thing to thank god for
That’s the joke 😝
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the injunction issued last week by U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez in San Diego from taking effect while the case remains under review.
The panel also unanimously agreed that state Attorney General Rob Bonta’s appeal in support of the gun law would be heard on its merits on an expedited basis.
“Weapons of war do not belong on our streets,” Bonta said, pointing to a mass shooting earlier this week in Lewiston, Maine, that claimed 18 lives and left 13 others wounded.
California in 1989 became the first U.S. state to ban assault weapons, acting in the wake of a school shooting that killed five children and toughening the law the following year.
Since then, California has restricted the manufacture, distribution, transportation, importation, sale or possession of firearms that qualify under the law as “assault weapons.”
Such guns are defined as those with certain tactical enhancements or configurations designed to make them more dangerous to the public and thus susceptible to criminal use.
The original article contains 367 words, the summary contains 168 words. Saved 54%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Civilians do not need automatic weapons. So this ruling makes sense.
This court case isn’t about automatic firearms it’s about semiautomatic firearms that exhibit listed features.
This particular rulling also is only about if the law should be enforced while a the trial regarding it’s constitutionality ensues.
Then the headline is wrong because semi-auto firearms are not federally defined as assault weapons.
They’re operating off of the CA definition in the headline.
To the best of my knowledge the only federal definition of the phrase ‘assault weapon’ came from the 1994 ban which ceased in 2004. And that targeted semiautomatic guns too as it was based off of California’s.
Thank you for the correction. I am dumb
No problem, we all have our moments.
Yes it is. Keep this moments and senses. Secure child’s and of yours. We can’t meeting. It is cardon power. It’s 25…
They just like fucking with definitions.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Automatic weapons were banned federally in 1934
They weren’t banned.
They required a $200 tax stamp at the time.
Now, they require a federal form (NFA Form 4), the $200 tax stamp and a metric ass ton of money since the public cannot purchase a full auto weapon manufactured after 1986 (Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986).
edit: Changed the tax amount, actually looked it up.
You forgot to also add that I am dumb and don’t know what I’m talking about
You forgot to also add that regular people cannot do all that because they also need to be a FFL
No, I didn’t, because, no they don’t.
If they’re manufacturing automatic weapons or wish to purchase an automatic weapons manufactured after 1986 to law enforcement, THEN you need a class 3 FFL license. If they’re manufacturing, then they also need to file a form 1.
Private individuals can purchase a machine gun without an FFL, assuming your state law allows it via form 4. An FFL makes the process easier, but it’s not a requirement
Yes. They are what are defined federally as “assault weapons” this entire discussion here is about.
So this headline and story are literally pointless and designed to instigate arguments.
I am pro gun and own several, however fuck automatic weapons no one needs those except the military and cops. Also fuck cops.
Why do cops need weapons at all? They are the most likely to misuse them and you are more likely to die from a cop then you are to die by an automatic weapon, or an “assault rifle.”
Why do cops need automatic weapons?
