but an appeal has already been filed, of course.
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi...7737480/2023.10.19_175_OPINION.pdf?1697737480
"Americans have an individual right to keep and bear firearms.2 The Second
Amendment to the United States Constitution “guarantees the individual right to
possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”3 Whether citizens ever fire or need to fire their weapons, is not important. This guarantee is fully binding on the States and
limits their ability to devise solutions to social problems.4 And the guarantee protects
“the possession of weapons that are ‘in common use,’”5 or arms that are “typically
possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”6 These are the decisions this
Court is bound to apply. “It’s our duty as judges to interpret the Constitution based on
the text and original understanding of the relevant provision—not on public policy
considerations, or worse, fear of public opprobrium or criticism from the political
branches.”7
"Today, the Supreme Court has very clearly ended modern interest
balancing when it comes to the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment, the Court
said, “is the very product of an interest balancing by the people and it surely elevates
above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms for self-
defense.”10 It is “this balance—struck by the traditions of the American people—that demands our unqualified deference.”11 The American tradition is rich and deep in
protecting a citizen’s enduring right to keep and bear common arms like rifles, shotguns,
and pistols. However, among the American tradition of firearm ownership, there is
nothing like California’s prohibition on rifles, shotguns, and handguns based on their
looks or attributes. Here, the “assault weapon” prohibition has no historical pedigree and
it is extreme. Even today, neither Congress nor most states impose such prohibitions on
modern semiautomatic arms. In contrast, laws that punish criminal acts committed with
any gun, like the crime of assault with a deadly weapon, remain perfectly constitutional.
Those criminal laws are not at issue here."
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi...7737480/2023.10.19_175_OPINION.pdf?1697737480
"Americans have an individual right to keep and bear firearms.2 The Second
Amendment to the United States Constitution “guarantees the individual right to
possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”3 Whether citizens ever fire or need to fire their weapons, is not important. This guarantee is fully binding on the States and
limits their ability to devise solutions to social problems.4 And the guarantee protects
“the possession of weapons that are ‘in common use,’”5 or arms that are “typically
possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”6 These are the decisions this
Court is bound to apply. “It’s our duty as judges to interpret the Constitution based on
the text and original understanding of the relevant provision—not on public policy
considerations, or worse, fear of public opprobrium or criticism from the political
branches.”7
"Today, the Supreme Court has very clearly ended modern interest
balancing when it comes to the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment, the Court
said, “is the very product of an interest balancing by the people and it surely elevates
above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms for self-
defense.”10 It is “this balance—struck by the traditions of the American people—that demands our unqualified deference.”11 The American tradition is rich and deep in
protecting a citizen’s enduring right to keep and bear common arms like rifles, shotguns,
and pistols. However, among the American tradition of firearm ownership, there is
nothing like California’s prohibition on rifles, shotguns, and handguns based on their
looks or attributes. Here, the “assault weapon” prohibition has no historical pedigree and
it is extreme. Even today, neither Congress nor most states impose such prohibitions on
modern semiautomatic arms. In contrast, laws that punish criminal acts committed with
any gun, like the crime of assault with a deadly weapon, remain perfectly constitutional.
Those criminal laws are not at issue here."
