What do you expect from a cali court?California’s 4th District (Division 1) Court of Appeal just held that the Second Amendment does not apply to semi-automatic firearms like “AK” platform rifles. Click here to read the decision. “We construe Heller as standing for the proposition that the right secured by the Second Amendment is ‘not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose’ (Heller, supra, 554 U.S. at p. 626), but is instead the right to possess and carry weapons typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes such as hunting or self-defense . . . We agree with James that the ban on AK series rifles does not impinge on rights protected by the Second Amendment because assault weapons ‘are at least as dangerous and unusual as the short-barreled shotgun’ (James, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at p. 677), which Miller concluded (with apparent approval from Heller) was outside the scope of the Second Amendment’s guarantee. (James, at pp. 674-675.)”
The "rare" they were talking of goes to "unusual and dangerous" prong of assessment from the supreme courts previous bad ruling that only the guns that are not "unusual and dangerous" are protected under 2A. Its a bad ruling but all we have to go with if we are to play by their game.
However, this is not what the supreme court said. Its got NOTHING to do with the dangerous or rarity of an SBS. This is simply a purposeful failure on the part of the court to force an appeal to the supreme court. No doubt about it. These guys don't follow the rules any more.
Guess we have to see what the SCOTUS says, once it gets there. First it has to go through the CA Supreme Court, then to the SCOTUS.
My guess is as good as yours there. They failed miserably in Heller and subsequent decisions, although they did get the verdict right in each case. I fear this one may be the failure that breaks our backs.
I should also mention that Miller was a case where they said that the SBS was not _shown_ to have use in military situations, and as such, it was not subject to the second amendment, in that instance (i.e., had they shown it had use, it would have been protected). Therefore, the comparison to Miller's SBS is simply ridiculous, because SCOTUS already said non-military weapons are what is protected, not military, because we now "trust our government". Talk about bad rulings one after another!
