https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-responds-court-decision-miller-v-bontaI'd like to know exactly what is "fundamentally flawed" about the decision.
There is no sound basis in law, fact, or common sense for equating assault rifles with swiss army knives — especially on Gun Violence Awareness Day ...
So the comparison is more inappropriate on certain days than it is on other days? Let's be clear here.
Besides, the comparison is completely apt. The fact CA's AWB prohibits certain firearms on the basis of appearance, among other criteria, is beyond dispute. Benitez goes on page after page after page explaining that concept and the reason it's a specious concept as applied to the purpose and function of firearms.
Of course my opinion means nothing, but it's a curious statement to make. Benitez's "Swiss army knife" allusion does not even bear upon his decision. He could have used any other tool by way of illustration.
What this tells me is that Bonta didn't bother to read past the first four words in the 92 page decision. He disagrees with it, ok we get that.
... and after the recent shootings in our own California communities. We need to take action to end gun violence now.
Ok fine. Take action then. After all that's what government does best, right?
Anyway. Everyone takes sides in a judicial decision and 2A defenders aren't any different in that regard. We don't like a decision and we rant and rave and holler and stomp our feet and so does the other side. But it's up to the litigants to come up with cogent arguments that support their position. The "Swiss army knife" remark isn't going to get much traction. CA doesn't regulate them (yet) (not as far as I know anyway).
The Ninth may in fact overturn this decision on appeal. I'd just like to know what's "fundamentally flawed" about it, because they'll have to soberly debate that question. Whatever that may be, it's going to be a bit more complicated than merely comparing a common black rifle to an equally common red pocket knife.
