Using what seems to be faulty reasoning concerning the “common use” of AR-style rifles for self-defense purposes, a district court in Washington State has denied a request for a preliminary injunction against the state’s so-called “assault weapons” ban.
On September 26, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington in the case Banta v. Ferguson denied the request for an injunction because, the ruling said, AR-15s are not weapons that are commonly owned for self-defense and well-tailored for that purpose. Instead, the court ruled that common semi-automatic rifles owned by millions of lawful Americans for self-defense and other purposes are better suited for offensive combat.
In the request, plaintiffs presented evidence that, in fact, self-defense is one of the primary uses of such firearms
“As to why Americans own AR-15s, NSSF consumer survey data shows that ‘[h]ome/self-defense’ is the second-highest reason cited for modern sporting rifle ownership, behind ‘recreational target shooting,’” plaintiffs argued.
However, the court wasn’t buying that argument as reason enough to grant the injunction.
“In sum, the data presented suggests that AR-15s are commonly owned, and some who own them do so for self-defense,” the ruling stated. “However, … most courts analyzing this issue have found commonality is not enough. In fact, most courts that have considered whether the AR-15 falls under the Second Amendment’s plain text have concluded that it does not.”
In its discussion of the second Bruen standard, whether there was historic precedent at the time of the nation’s founding, the court noted that the state’s proffered historical analogs likely weigh in favor of upholding the ban, despite the fact that ownership of common arms wasn’t banned at the time.
noted, without providing any analysis, that the State’s proffered historical analogs—including restrictions on the sale of certain weapons and on the manner in which they could be carried—likely weigh in favor of upholding the ban.
“Similar to the above discussion of Bruen step one, there is little authority to guide the Court’s analysis at Bruen step two,” the ruling stated. “However, what authority exists tends to weigh against Plaintiffs’ challenge. SHB 1240 is a prohibition on the manufacture, import, distribution, or sale of a weapon the legislature deemed dangerous. While no Ninth Circuit case to date has reviewed a similar law, other circuit courts and other district courts in this circuit have done so.”
The ruling then went on to explain its reasoning on the historical precedent question, even though it didn’t make much sense.
“Here, the State Defendants offer a number of proposed analogues to demonstrate that SHB 1240 is within this Nation’s historical tradition of gun regulations,” the ruling stated. “These analogues include restrictions on the sale, carrying, concealment, brandishing, possession, and certain types of uses of certain weapons, in the form of taxes, fines, and criminal penalties. These analogues include some that circuit courts of appeal have found persuasive in comparable cases, such as regulations of Bowie knives and other dangerous weapons.”
The decision is likely to be appealed to the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.
….” instead, the court ruled that common semi-automatic owned by millions of lawful Americans for self defense and other purposes are better suited for offensive combat. ”
In other words, the exact intent of the Second Amendment as written.
Yes.
I maintain that Non-Military weapons ARE NOT protected by the Second Amendment and can be banned at will.
I’m unclear how you reach that conclusion. The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is pretty clear. Now I will agree that in US v. Miller (1939) SCOTUS cited the introductory statement of the 2nd Amendment to say that arms of efficacy to the military ARE SPECIFICLLY protected for the People. All arms have dual use and at one time or another all firearms were used by militaries.
“ARMS” refers to military weapons & has for centuries. Fowling Pieces, Saturday-Night Specials and Deer Rifles are NOT “Arms”
… in Beginners Dictionary for Dummies?
Oxford, Cambridge, Merriam-Webster, Funk and Wagnell’s, Random House, Chambers, and others would like to have many words with you.
And you need it, as you mis-spell Fudd Troll in your name constantly.
unicorn he spellsit that way cus his capitol “C” and “t” dont work on his keybored
arms (Oxford Dict)
/ärmz/
weapons and ammunition; armaments.
“arms exports”
arm (n) Merriam Webster
: a means (such as a weapon) of offense or defense
especially : firearm
Not seeing it dude.
What one would call a “deer rifle” another would call a sniper rifle. Me thinks the coke bottle glasses have you seeing the world different than the rest of us.
Hund,
Actually, our United States military has used all three of those classes of firearms that you mentioned in combat.
Various troops carried shotguns in World War I, World War II, and even as late as the Vietnam War. Troops also carried small and inexpensive revolvers (chambered in .38 Special no less), especially pilots. Finally, sharpshooters (e.g. snipers) have used “deer rifles” in combat in Vietnam and through present day.
Note that “sniper rifles” (starting at least as early as the Vietnam war) were none-other than bolt-action rifles with scopes which were (and to this day still are) common among deer hunters.
The only possible quibble would be over the length of the barrel on shotguns, with long barrels (about 26-inches) being common for fowling and shorter barrels (about 18-inches) being more common for combat.
Here is what my great great grandfather voted for in Butler, Pennsylvania: “Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” Tench Coxe The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
Welcome to the good ol’ USA. Where progressive judges will simply ignore their duties completely and find in favor of the progressive decision, while conservative judges are the ones painted as ‘radical’ and ‘tyrannical’.
Hard to be patriotic when THIS is the sort of state that you’re waving a flag for.
And this is just one flaw in the “common use” test. Whether we are talking about common use by the People or the military, this test is irrelevant and fundamentally oppositional to “shall not be infringed”. Rights, by their very definition, are absolute. No law which seeks to restrict the ability to exercise a right is Constitutionally permissible. Now, if through that exercise you harm others, then yes, punishment is fitting. Yes, you CAN yell fire in crowded theatre when none exists. We haven’t even contemplated banning the word FIRE. Yet in doing so you can be held accountable for that act and the harm it creates. If you are uncomfortable with banning words or thoughts or religions, then you should be equally uncomfortable with banning arms. And those who seek to ban arms are naught a stones throw from banning the former as well.
Washington courts are less than judicial when it comes to thinking. The AG already has commitments from judges about his gun policies before the policies are put in place.
The Washington Supreme court is also packed. Until these challenges get out of the state there is no hope.
The AG has said that he will put into place anything he wants because the status will stay for years until it gets to a court that reverses them.
What Washington needs is a law that allows damages against the state, and personal damages against the politicians that supported the measures, as well as personal damages against the lower officials that enforce the unconstitutional measures.
So exactly where is it in the 2nd Amendment does it say only the arms approved by the government?
Yes, when the BOR was written they did include things like cannon and even privately owned warships.
As for the AR pattern rifles not being suited to defensive use, then why are they issued to LEO’s and garrison or security troops? Or do these Judges think police or security personnel are offensive combat troops?
No, the ruling is nothing but the opinions of politically motivated activist Judges who have swallowed the narrative of the pro disarmament industry. Never mind the 2nd amendment is very clearly written that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is to be untouched by any government regulations.
What most of these leftists are upset about is the fact the Constitution is written to limit governmental authority and promote individual freedoms, liberties and responsibilities of the citizens. And yes, with rights do come responsibilities. Just as with choices come rewards and consequences.
Based on this logic, nukes should be permissible for the people, since all of our nation’s nuclear weapons are controlled by the Department of Defense. Hence, nukes are defensive weapons, not offensive.
:-p
OldManinAl,
Your statement about law enforcement carrying AR-15s in their cars is, by far-and-away, the best counter argument to the courts.
Unfortunately, anti-rights courts will simply devise another bogus “argument” to support AR-15 bans even if we somehow dismantle their current justification for upholding bans.
The sad reality is that judges (in civil rights cases) already have a position before the case ever comes to them and their “decision” is nothing more than their attempt to bamboozle the masses into accepting their predetermined position.
come and take it camel toe Kamala
I get a kick out of Dems that want to kill babies but want to take our guns away that protect them.
Says a lot for humanity.
The purpose of the courts is to come to the partisan conclusion the people who pu them there want.
When you accept this you’ll realize there is no such thing as faulty reasoning and you’ll stop putting any trust, value or worth on the courts of this country and yes the logical conclusion extends this sentiment to Congress, POTUS and the nation itself.
We’re all just here to be robbed and bullied by the 1% experiencing only occasional and temporary reprieve.
The Truth About the AR-15 In One Brief.
Everything you ever wanted to know about the AR-15 in one brief.
Washington Gun Law President, William Kirk, discusses another amicus brief filed in the matter of Snope v. Brown, a challenge to Maryland’s assault weapon ban. This amicus brief, authored by experts in the field, is an excellent roadmap of all the false rumors and fairy tales that are often used to pass legislation to ban these weapons. This memorandum systematically takes apart each and everyone of these arguments.
h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNLF4KTpbFg
especially read the brief its self … completely debunks the anti-gun lies about the AR-15.
h ttps://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-203/326694/20240923185449707_24-203%20Amicus%20IntlLawEnfEducatorsTrainersAssoc.pdf
A judge said, “if the negroes were american citizens, they would be able to have guns. And carry them where ever they please.”
So judges make all kinds of crazy.anti civil rights statements. They should be removed from office. Just like any anti-civil rights politician.
Faulty reasoning? Try malicious misapprehension.