The ruling noted that these weapons are commonly available in other states and the ban constitutes a violation of Californians’ Second Amendment rights.

Seems like a classic example of states' rights vs. Federal rights. I'm guessing righties are all for the primacy of states' rights when it suits them.

Unfortunately, states have a history of denying protections promised by the Bill of Rights. California would be smart to drop the appeal, as a negative ruling from the Supreme Court, should it get there), might overturn gun bans in all states.

Well, I not a constitutional lawyer, so I really don’t know the answer to this question. We all hear about “gun control” and the Second Amendment and the right to bear “arms” but it does seem as though there are regulations limiting the type of “arms” that are out there. Totally automatic weapons are prohibited, as are things such as RPGs, bazookas, and the like. So who is defining what “arms” are? For the record, even though I am considered a  “rightie” I do favor a reasonable control of the type of weapons that are available to the general citizenry.

I think handguns and rifles (up to semi-automatic) fall under the term “commonly owned weapons”, which Judge Benitez used in his ruling.

which is somewhat apt: both can slice and dice people.  The AR15 is much more efficient at that, however, as it’s what it was expressly designed to do.  All of the people who’ve lost loved ones to mass murders committed with the AR15 will attest to that.

mass murder.

ALL the things he mentioned ARE regulated to one degree or another.
1) Automobiles are built to Federal safety standards. They must be registered with the state where they're driven and a driver needs to be over 18 and have a thing called a Driver's License.
2) Cigarettes are regulated, so is the sale of alcohol and, increasingly, pot.

has anyone had a problem in the country over having too few guns? And since there are no limits on how many guns you can have, what's the problem?

which just changed to an unregulated handgun state.
Keep up, Lost.

as in, you’ve just destroyed the long-held Republican doctrine that each state should have the right to enact laws different from other states.

SCOTUS has ruled that there are some types of hand-carried firearms that the Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee the right to own as they aren’t required by a “well regulated militia”.  And neither the Constitution, nor the Federal government by law, has defined what constitutes a “well regulated militia”.  That leaves the definition of a well regulated militia, and the firearms needed by such, up to the states and allows for different states to allow different types of firearms for their well regulated militias.  

Too bad the lefties in here, like the indoctrinated millenials and gen z kids, have the attention span of a gnat and won't read past the first bullet point if they even get THAT far.

But we all know I was never on it to begin with now don't we, buddy?

Treat it like cigarettes. Make it hard as fuck to registration it, then have them wait 1 year...do gun suppression.

You said:
“It defies all forms of logic that a document called the Bills of Rights would say, ‘You can do this, but not that. You can do this this way, but not that way.’”

The ***Fifteenth Amendment*** to the United States Constitution prevents states from denying the right to vote on grounds of "race, color, or previous condition of servitude".
.
15th Amendment:  
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
.
Section 2. ***The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.***
.
Direct election of Senators, established by the ***Seventeenth Amendment***, gave voters rather than state legislatures the right to elect senators.
.
Women are guaranteed the right to vote in all US States by the ***Nineteenth Amendment***. In practice, the same restrictions that hindered the ability of poor or non-white men to vote now also applied to poor or non-white women.
.
Adults aged 18 through 20 are granted the right to vote by the ***Twenty-sixth Amendment***. This was enacted in response to Vietnam War protests, which argued that soldiers who were old enough to fight for their country should be granted the right to vote.
.
Protection of voter registration and voting for racial minorities, later applied to language minorities, is established by the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This has also been applied to correcting discriminatory election systems and districting.

Where do I say NO guns?? It'll just come at a cost, that's all.
Just a little gun suppression that's all....think of it was voter suppression...You could only but a gun between the hours of 1pm-9pm on Sundays. You have to count the beans in a jar to buy a gun,,,you know the story, right?

Both you guys, this is about assault rifles, see the OP.

But at least willy also told the writer to STFU.

a stranglehold on California government for over a decade are arrogant to the point of stupidity, and rarely will see the big picture  I have to agree it would be the SMART move, but don't hold your breath.  Lol

That's your way of saying "I give the fuck up"...Then the limit free speech, that's a reach.
And boo woo with my "my constitutional rights bullshit"...that card has been played out.

Just like that maggot in Dirty Harry....wait for it....wait for it...lol

was asked for his opinion of Judge Benitez's comparison of an AR-15 to a Swiss Army Knife.  Bratton said:
"He's an idiot!  He's out of his mind!"

as a semi-automatic for public consumption.  The full auto version that we used in the military is a genuine assault rifle, the semi-auto, not so much.  There are hunting rifles that are a lot more accurate than an AR-15.  That's why military snipers don't use them.  

when shooting people at close range and spraying bullets from a big ass clip into a crowd of people.  

So you REALLY want to ban ALL guns, because most guns are semi-automatic, just like the AR-15.  Clip size makes little difference.  If you had been in the military you would know how fast you can switch out an empty clip for a loaded one.  Its seconds, not minutes.

Since clip size makes little difference, that means gun owners should have no problem supporting bans on large magazines.

in terms of number of words. But a canon wouldn’t be too useful in hunting or self-defense.  

No more than a cop can "spray bullets" from his semi automatic handgun.

Not very fast, huh?  Maybe you need more time at the range.  

as can just about anybody else with even a modicum of skill with a firearm.  

Steve_T said, "Skilled shooters can fire 3 rounds per second from an AR-15." He didn't say "most skilled" or "world record." Neither did he say "first time user."  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3gf_5MR4tE
AR-15 5 shots in 1 second with fastest shooter ever, Jerry Miculek (Shoot Fast!)
(He hit his target, something Steve didn't mention. Might be faster without aiming.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grgfKJT4Z48
6 shots on 3 targets in 1 second!  
.
.
The Glock has a rate of fire of 1100-1200 rounds per minute  (wikipedia) = 1200/60 = 20 rounds per second. GaG doing 18 rounds / 3 seconds is plenty reasonable.

I hope you aren't suggesting that he just pulled the number out of his ass because I don't see any links from either of you supporting that rather arbitrary sounding number.  

Never try to have reasonable discourse with those who think that one can never have too many
guns or too much ammunition. After all, guns don't kill people; people kill people (plenty of those
deaths are suicides). Why create laws that make killing oneself or another person more difficult.
Interesting that we have more deaths by gun than any other Nation with our proportionate
wealth.

In addition to wikipedia, http://eu.glock.com/en/products/pistols/g18
"The rate of fire in full-automatic-mode is approximately 20 rounds per second."
I haven't found data for semi-auto mode. However, it is mechanically capable of 20 rps without jamming or misfiring.  GaG squeezing off 18 rounds in 3 seconds seems reasonable to me.  
.
As for the AR-15, we know from gun pro Miculek's youtubes, that the AR-15 can do 6 rps without any mechanical problems. For a mere mortal, non-pro shooter, 3 rps seems reasonable to me.

that a well-regulated militia did at THAT time was to line in in three lines one behind the other, the first line of 2-300 men files at the same time launching 300 rounds in seconds, then they kneel to reload while the second line fires over their heads.  Then the third line would advance to the front and fire, then kneel to reload.  By now the first line was reloaded and ready to fire again.  Ten minutes of shooting like this can result in a several hundred deaths.  You don't consider this type of warfare a "mass shooting?"  Do you think militiamen had inferior weapons to the regular army?  They were usually the same.  So if the regulars are now using M-16's with clips, why shouldn't the citizen-militia of which every adult male is technically a part of, own AR-15's, which are only slightly inferior to an M-16 because the AR-15 will not go full auto without an illegal conversion kit.  

the collective rights position on the Second Amendment, which has been the dominant position of legal scholars for most of US history.  It holds that the Second Amendment applies only to use of arms by militias.

Back in the day, frontline troops were issued the M1 Garand semi-automatic rifle and non-frontline troops were issued 1911 pistols.  But it became evident that no one could hit anything with pistols, so non-frontline troops were then issued a a smaller rifle known as the semi-automatic M1 Carbine.  
.
This was the precursor of the M16/AR-15 (AR does not stand for assault rife, it stands for ArmaLite Rifle, the designer of that platform.)  A lighter shorter rifle than previous versions, but more accurate to shoot than a pistol.
.
So the AR-15 is therefore easier for anyone to shoot accurately than a pistol, and therefore a better defensive weapon.  The smaller lighter factor eventually overrode other benefits of longer heavier weapons and the M16/AR-15 platform became the main weapon issued to all troops.
.
This is the reason is it also preferred as a civilian self-defense weapon and is the most popular weapon platform ever.  It is a compromise of several factors that hits the sweet spot of civilian home defense.  Even in your house you are better off holding and AR-15 than a pistol.  Even shooting from the hip your aim is going to be much better.
.
Ironically, the M1 Carbine, a semi-automatic weapon, is legal in California and up until this ruling, the AR-15, of similar killing capability, was not -- because reasons.

when was the last time there were 58 people killed—or even 49–in one attack by a knife-wielding killer in England, or in any country for that matter.

You’re a self-proclaimed expert in just about everything yet you can’t do a simple Google search.  Sheesh.

You're so busy swapping spit with your BFF that you rarely criticize him for his lies and bullshit.  And you're too much of a gutless chickenshit to even refer to Cuck-da-Liar's bullshit as "lies."  You use the same bullshit euphemism as he does - "poetic license."  You really are a cowardly piece of shit.

Happy Land Arson Fire of 1990 in NYC killed 87.  A man (Julio González) and a match.

There are approx 15,000 firearm homicides (not including suicides) in the USA per year.  There are approx 3000 arson deaths per year in the USA.  There is always a way to kill a lot of people if you are so motivated.

Of course, you had no answer for my question, so you tried to divert.