Federal Judge Dismisses Challenge to California’s AWB, Says Second Amendment Does Not Protect ‘Assault Weapons’

U.S. District Judge Josephine Staton ruled that the Second Amendment does not apply to semi-automatic rifles. (Photo: Wikimedia Commons)

A challenge to California’s “assault weapon” ban was struck down by a federal judge last week, setting the stage for an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court and, possibly, the U.S. Supreme Court.

U.S. District Judge Josephine Staton of Santa Ana was the first federal judge to rule on the state’s controversial law. She argued that “assault weapons” are “incredibly effective killing machines” and are not commonly used or necessary for self-defense.

“Because the Court concludes that semiautomatic assault rifles are essentially indistinguishable from M-16s, which Heller noted could be banned pursuant to longstanding prohibitions on dangerous and usual weapons, the Court need not reach the question of whether semiautomatic rifles are excluded from the Second Amendment because they are not in common use for lawful purposes like self-defense,” Staton said.

Plaintiffs in the case, all California gun owners who want to own the semi-automatic rifles California currently prohibits, were represented by the California Rifle and Pistol Association. In their suit, they cited a 2011 dissenting opinion by now-U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who argued that Washington, D.C.’s ban on semi-automatic “assault weapons” is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment and under the Supreme Court’s Heller decision that guaranteed the individual right to keep and bear arms.

In Heller, the Court held that handguns are constitutionally protected because they have not historically been banned and they are in common use by law-abiding citizens. Because “there is no meaningful or persuasive constitutional distinction between semi-automatic handguns and semiautomatic rifles,” Kavanaugh argued, semi-automatic rifles enjoy the same protections.

SEE ALSO: Which Gun is Best for Home Defense? Handgun, Shotgun, & AR-15 All Work, but the AR-15 Might Be Your Best Choice

Staton disagreed.

Citing what appears to be a misreading of Heller, Staton claimed that the “core” of the Second Amendment is “the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home” – not for all law-abiding purposes. Since semi-automatic “assault weapons” are not commonly used in home defense, Staton continued, they can be restricted or banned under the Second Amendment as long as the state has a significant interest in doing so.

Under this lower form of scrutiny, Staton could rule that since “assault weapons” are dangerous, they can be banned.

“Semiautomatic rifles with non-fixed magazines, along with the other enumerated features, are incredibly effective killing machines, and the Attorney General’s evidence strongly suggests that such weapons are disproportionately used in mass shootings and that, when they are used, more people are injured and killed,” she said.

Quick fact check on the claim that “assault weapons” are “disproportionately” used in mass shootings,” turns out that pistols are the preferred weapon of active shooters — not black rifles. Additionally, handguns end up being more lethal than rifles in mass shootings. (Graph: The Trace)

SEE ALSO: Disabled Vet Uses AR-15 to Fight Off Four Intruders, Killing Two

“To be sure, Plaintiffs may have legitimate interests in possessing semiautomatic rifles within the AWCA’s scope,” she concluded. “However, California has permissibly weighed those interests against the weapons’ propensity for being used for mass violence and concluded that the weapons’ lawful value is drastically outweighed by the danger they pose to California citizens.”

The case can now be appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court. From there, gun rights advocates can appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which recently agreed to rule on a case pertaining to the carrying of firearms outside the home.

***Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! All Local Sales are FREE!***

About the author: Jordan Michaels has been reviewing firearm-related products for over six years and enjoying them for much longer. With family in Canada, he’s seen first hand how quickly the right to self-defense can be stripped from law-abiding citizens. He escaped that statist paradise at a young age, married a sixth-generation Texan, and currently lives in Tyler. Got a hot tip? Send him an email at jordan@gunsamerica.com.

{ 92 comments… add one }
  • Anthony Romano November 12, 2021, 7:20 am

    I’ve always asked the question,” If I use my so called “assault rifle” to defend myself is it not then considered a “Defense Weapon”?

  • John October 17, 2020, 1:03 pm

    This is just another rehash of the same old problem, judges ruling on a subject they know absolutely nothing about. “It’s not about guns, stupid” it’s about not putting murderers behind bars where they belong and can’t re-offend again. Is it better to bring back the death penalty or simply lock them behind bars for the remainder of their lives, while the taxpayers simply snivel about higher taxes.

    All this drivel about rifles that are too effective as “killing machines” is BS. The one with a finger on the trigger is what makes it effective. Who should have the most bullets, your attacker or you surrounded by a mob of murderous criminals? And, where do they hire all these stupid irresponsible judges? Especially those who have no clue whatsoever about working-class American people trying to protect their lives and family. I think we are long over due for a good housecleaning in the judicial system. Too many innocent people are dying due to those in positions of power who live in a make-believe world.

  • Einar Petersen August 21, 2020, 9:37 am

    Obviously the Judge in more Politically, rather than Judicially, motivated in her decision. There have been literally Hundreds of Cases where Intruder(s) were killed and/or wounded by the use of M-16 Style Weapons, including by a 16 year old defending his home and family. She’s nothing more than a Political Hack and needs to be removed from her “abused” powerful position.

  • John May 29, 2020, 2:23 pm

    The 2A was written so an 8th grader could easily understand it’s clear meaning. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is an unalienable right of self-defense, as a gift from God. That right is inherent because we are endowed with that sacred right from God at birth, not from any government created by man.

    All government receives its authority from the consent of the governed, and no one else. Without proper consent, the government has no authority to rule over the rights of the sovereign American people. Unless you give your personal consent, they have no power and simply rule by tyranny and fear alone, not by the law of the land aka the US Constitution, under solemn oath. I believe the time for feathers and the tar bucket is long overdue.

  • BMZ November 18, 2019, 3:53 pm

    Here is a problem. The oath for a Federal Judge (pasted below) affirms nothing about upholding the Constitution. It only states will discharge the duties incumbent upon me under the constitution.

    This justice might actually think the Constitution and Laws give her the right to rule as she sees fit (her interpretation of justice), not the obligation to uphold them as they are written. This makes it very convenient for these justices to inject their own opinions or beliefs into their verdicts.

    I think this is an incomplete oath as it should also require an affirmation about abiding by the Constitution and Laws.

    This is why appointments to positions like this should never be made out of political necessity, but instead are often made to maintain an ideological balance within a territory. There should be some recourse to these judges being appointed for life. I understand that this is supposed to ensure their impartiality by making sure they have no allegiance to any person or party, but what it does accomplish is making sure their personal opinions and ideology goes on uncontested.

    I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as (office) under the Constitution and laws of the United States. [So help me God.]

  • Kalashnikov Dude September 20, 2019, 12:10 pm

    Good God! Drag this broad from the judicial chambers out into daylight, strip her of robes, and lock her down in stocks for public ridicule! She knows better…..

  • Ray Stone August 9, 2019, 10:09 am

    4 words solve this dilemma “Shall not be infringed” it’s right there at the end… DUH!

  • Edwin Vieira August 5, 2019, 3:31 pm

    Another horrendous Kolbe v. Hogan-type opinion, based on irresponsible dicta from District of Columbia v. Heller. When will pro-gun people learn that all twenty-seven words of the Second Amendment (as well as Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16) need to form the basis of their argument, not just the last fourteen words of the Amendment? One cannot defend the Constitution by disregarding parts of it.

    • T Jefferson December 1, 2019, 8:22 pm

      Shortly after the gun grabbers learn the legal difference between a preambulatory clause and an operative clause?

  • robert August 4, 2019, 8:12 am

    What a stupid whore; the 2nd Amendment doesn’t cover assault weapons; it doesn’t cover ANY weapons. It wasn’t supposed to. It’s a protection FROM the government. The right to keep & bear arms is God given and inalienable. The amendment keeps others from infringing on them. The style of guns was up to the CITIZENRY. Why do people think they know more than Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin etc etc. I mean really? These guys sailed across the sea and built their own improved country from the ground up. What kind of experience do you really have that says you know better? Wrote you own constitution lately? Stupid whores.

  • Norman Dvorak August 3, 2019, 5:42 am

    This Judge is wrong. A true assault weapon is a weapon that has a selector switch that allows the user to select fully automatic. Any other weapon without a selector switch is nothing but a semi-automatic rifle whether or not if it looks like an M-16. It is only an AR-15 in which the AR means Armalite Rifle which is the company that originally made these type semi-automatic rifles. As to whether or not we Civilian Citizens of the United States would ever need these type weapons depends on how many of our rights our Government tries to take away from us. We may need these rifles and the ammo for them to defend ourselves from our own Government.

  • Kevin P Key August 2, 2019, 7:22 pm

    She has pretty teeth.

  • Robert Messmer August 2, 2019, 6:13 pm

    Another Obama Judge that has no reading comprehension. No where in the 2nd amendment does it give the government the authority to determine what any one needs for their self-defense, hunting, shooting. or sports activities. Please read the amendment as it is plainly written – any and all weapons a citizen wishes to keep and bear are covered -SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. No limitations on type, magazine capacity or how scary it might look. At the time the 2nd amendment was written and ratified weapons with more than a 10 round capability existed, individual civilians owned cannons, and even machine guns.

  • Scotty Gunn August 2, 2019, 5:49 pm

    Good looking judge, but an airhead. She needs to do some reading.

  • Chained August 2, 2019, 5:43 pm

    What a stupid c***! Where in the second amendment does it state types of weapons that citizens can or can’t own? Does Ms Dolt understand that the people are the militia and should be as well armed as the fed government.

  • zach August 2, 2019, 5:27 pm

    not in common use what the fuck its the most popular riffle in america and guess what every firearm looks like a millitary or law enforcement model because they have the same basic operating system and a manufacturer isnt going to reinvent the wheel to sell only to one party its not smart

  • DIYinSTL August 2, 2019, 4:27 pm

    If the article quotes judge Staton correctly then the judge either did not read Heller or she thinks common misconception can be substituted for fact. (The latter is clear, the former is probably also true.)

    Nowhere in Heller does it say that the M-16 can be banned. A footnote merely states that if one makes the argument that military weapons such as the M-16 and the like can be banned, then you must forfeit the claim that Second Amendment applies to the militia and not “the people.” Heller (in theory) protects firearms in common use and those that are not “dangerous AND unusual.” It left the fate of machine gun ownership to a future decision.

  • JR Cowboy August 2, 2019, 3:09 pm

    Anyone with even a little understanding of different rifle platforms and ammunition options knows that the AR-15 chambered in its most popular .223 variant packs a pretty mild recoil compared to similarly-powerful long guns. It is not a machine gun as you need to pull the trigger for each shot just like most semi automatic rifles. It is not an assault rifle! It was first made by Armalite Rifle which is where the AR abbreviation came from…
    That’s precisely why it is so popular among shooters using the rifle for everything from law enforcement to home defense to sport— it’s not particularly loud, scary or difficult to shoot.
    We don’t need a new gun ban. We need a ban on the political correctness dulling our collective ability to better recognize the people not worthy of society’s trust. And we need to do away with gun free zones. Any chance at all that a concealed carrier may have the opportunity to dispatch one of these bastards to hell before he racks up a high innocent body count sounds more sensible to me than does thinking that murderers obey gun laws.
    It’s liberal ignorance and stupidity that’s bringing on all this bloodshed, not AR-15s.

  • Patrick McWilliams August 2, 2019, 2:31 pm

    First, the mechanical differences between an M-16 and an AR-15 should only be a matter of interest to gun buffs, not the law.

    In the infamous 1939 Miller case, the Supreme Court ruled that no one had brought it to their attention that a short-barreled shotgun was part of the normal armament of the militia or National Guard, and therefore could be taxed out of the hands of the ordinary citizen. By that logic, since the Thompson Submachinegun and Browning Automatic Rifle were incontrovertibly issue weapons of the Armed Forces and the National Guard, a ban or restrictive tax on these were unconstitutional. but, as we all know, lawyers and judges can always twist the clear meaning of words to produce the results the government wants.

  • Heywood Jablome August 2, 2019, 2:12 pm

    This is great news. This means the case can immediately go to the appeals court and hopefully ultimately to SCOTUS and this and California’s other infringements can be eliminated!

  • Shan August 2, 2019, 1:44 pm

    So that recent shooting at Gilroy Garlic Festival reportedly guy used a SKS. Media called it an “Assualt Rifle.” Now my SKS has no pistol grip, no flash hider , no detachable magazine and only holds ten rounds.
    See how their terminology expands as they need it to. Only stupid ass tyrannical libtard commies would think you could make guns less dangerous.

    • Edward M Pate August 2, 2019, 3:09 pm

      I had read it was a WASR AK. But still I am always amazed how someone can go through primary and secondary schools, college and law school and still not understand what the founders intention was in the 2nd amendment.

  • Steve August 2, 2019, 12:53 pm

    The delusional conclusion by U.S. District Judge Josephine Staton shows bias, lack of reading the second amendment (“shall not be infringed”, includes limited thought a, a disregard of common sense, as well as lack of research into the alleged “facts” as opposed to actual facts she uses as a basis of her conclusion.
    It is disappointing that someone of her status and education refuses to do research, has a bias which overcomes her oath of office to respect and defend the constitution and makes specious claims to support her preconceived cause.
    One only needs to review the creators of the Bill of Rights as well as the fact that they had just fought a was to free the United States from an oppressive and tyrannical power. There is no new right to the use of arms, which, by the way not only include firearms, but , as we have seen in well publicized tragedies, arms include many items well away from just firearms. the list is very long and varied.

    • trebor August 2, 2019, 6:11 pm

      I have some difficulty with a judge reviewing the 2nd amendment and viewing it as a right of personal protection when anybody can read the amendment and see that the purpose of the 2nd amendment is the guarantee of the citizens to own arms to defend against a depressive suppressive government. Private ownership of arms is what freed this country from England and private ownership of firearms is what will keep this country free.

  • Dit August 2, 2019, 12:44 pm

    I’ll bet her right to carry a canon under her robe has not been infringed. Lets pass a law prohibiting all politicians, judges, and law enforcement officers from carrying guns. What do they need them for? It can’t be self protection? Give them single shot 22 handguns to protect their homes.

  • John Murray August 2, 2019, 12:42 pm

    The second amendment was required by several states that were worried about the federal government becoming too powerful. The founding fathers mentioned governmental examples where the people feared the government and did not want this to be the case in United States government. They wanted the federal government to understand that the people had the power to overthrow the government if tyranny occurred and the constitution was not being upheld. At this time I thnk that the arms necessary to overthrow today’s government require at least semi- auto weapons. In any case I don’t think this judge is stupid, she doesn’t want the people to have the ability to overthrow the government. The people have to make the decision whether they want that ability or allow a judge to decide.

  • Tim Cogswell August 2, 2019, 12:05 pm

    Another uninformed person, who knows nothing about firearms, making decisions about firearm laws.

    • Heywood Jablome August 2, 2019, 2:14 pm

      The decision may have been done on purpose so the matter can be heard by the 9th circuit and ultimately SCOTUS! The Supremes will remind California that there is a 2nd amendment and they must obey it!

  • Jim Cargill August 2, 2019, 11:57 am

    A female CA judge, who knows little to nothing about weapons, and cannot even correctly read the Heller case, has declared a ruling that will be struck down in an eventual court. She ruled largely on the basis that the AR is “indistinguishable” from the M16, a fact which does not make it an M16.

  • Scott in Atlanta August 2, 2019, 10:59 am

    “Shall not be infringed” is such a hard phrase to understand. Right? Wrong.

  • Greg August 2, 2019, 10:26 am

    What would you expect from a CA judge? She’s a complete moron. They have been so wondrously successful at destroying CA that they now want to export their stupidity to the rest of the country.

    • Winston August 2, 2019, 11:38 am

      She’s a federal judge, not CA. The Ninth Circuit is a US District Court. She could be from any state or Israel.

      • Steve August 2, 2019, 12:55 pm

        I I think you have limited your response incorrectly, it should read,
        She could be from any U.S. state to be a federal judge,must be a U.S. citizen as well as she could have come from any country in the world.

      • Heywood Jablome August 2, 2019, 2:17 pm

        Honorable Josephine L. Staton
        District Judge

        ​Ronald Reagan Federal Building and United States Courthouse, 411 W. Fourth St., Santa Ana, CA, 92701, Courtroom 10A, 10th Floor​​​​​​​​​

      • kjon24 August 2, 2019, 2:29 pm

        You obviously didn’t read the article closely or you are just a fruit-loop or a unicorn chasing, gumdrop eating, rainbow hunting troll or maybe ALL the above. So here it is once again for you: U.S. District Judge Josephine Staton of Santa Ana was the first federal judge to rule on the state’s controversial law. Last time I checked Santa Ana IS in CA !!!

  • Tamara August 2, 2019, 9:44 am

    Stand by your Oath = Patriots
    DENY your Oath = Terrorist
    This is in three inche letters on my tailgate of my truck.

    • kjon24 August 2, 2019, 2:32 pm

      ABSOLUTELY !!! The oath breakers need and should be rounded up and charged with Treason !!! BRAVO for you Tamara. Please check out and join Oathkeepers.org and pass it on to ALL !!!

  • Dash August 2, 2019, 9:20 am

    “”U.S. District Judge Josephine Staton of Santa Ana was the first federal judge to rule on the state’s controversial law. She argued that “assault weapons” are “incredibly effective killing machines” and are not commonly used or necessary for self-defense.””

    Nevermind the Constitution or Heller Ms Activist Californian Judge… and how the hell does she know what WE commonly use for self-defense?

    • Heywood Jablome August 2, 2019, 2:19 pm

      It’s not her job to determine what is or isn’t NECESSARY for self-defense. I may want one so I can join that well-regulated militia!

  • No1hunter August 2, 2019, 9:13 am

    Did you expect anything different from a Kalliphoney judge? They live in the phony make believe world of Foolywood and frankly prove day in and day out they are about as smart at a thumbtack.

    Appeal her ruling and have her personal opinion reversed, AS USUAL. Futher, these judges should be responsible for all appeal fees and costs when their idiotic opinions are reversed. It might make them think for a change before making this type of ruling.

    • Steve August 2, 2019, 12:58 pm

      I live in California, object to Judge Stanton’s conclusion and ruling and also your concept that the entire state is off kilter.

  • Alrj August 2, 2019, 9:04 am

    Californians, stay the hell out of Texas .

  • phil davis August 2, 2019, 9:04 am

    ​President Trump said Wednesday that he would order the Navy to rescind medals given to military lawyers who prosecuted a ​former ​Navy SEAL the president supported during his court martial on murder charges. He did not personally serve in any military service….“The Prosecutors who lost the case against SEAL Eddie Gallagher (who I released from solitary confinement so he could fight his case properly), were ridiculously given a Navy Achievement Medal,” Trump wrote on Twitter.“I have directed the Secretary of the Navy Richard Spencer & Chief of Naval Operations John Richardson to immediately withdraw and rescind the awards​,” Trump continued.​President Trump said Wednesday that he would order the Navy to rescind medals given to military lawyers who prosecuted a ​former ​Navy SEAL the president supported during his court martial on murder charges.“The Prosecutors who lost the case against SEAL Eddie Gallagher (who I released from solitary confinement so he could fight his case properly), were ridiculously given a Navy Achievement Medal,” Trump wrote on Twitter.“I have directed the Secretary of the Navy Richard Spencer & Chief of Naval Operations John Richardson to immediately withdraw and rescind the awards​,” Trump continued.

    • Zupglick August 2, 2019, 9:41 am

      He may not have served, but I, and many others think this decision is correct under the circumstances.

      • Jim August 2, 2019, 1:20 pm

        Zuphlick, I agree with you however I fail to understand what Phil Davis’s point was or its relevance to the topic of the article.

  • Michael August 2, 2019, 9:04 am

    A rock. A baseball bat. An ink pen. If I attack you with any one of these, that item then becomes an “Assault Weapon “. Assigning those words to ANY Rifle NOT used in a crime is simply wrong. Even our Armed Forces do not refer us AR’s as Assault Weapons. They are simply Rifles.

    • deanbob August 2, 2019, 10:51 am

      Most MSM puts gun violence on the front page as often and in as large a print as they can; but when more poeple are killed in a violent crime that does not involve a firearm, they have no interest in reporting that mass murder. Case in point is the case of arson that killed 39 people in Kyoto, Japan.

      • Robert Messmer August 2, 2019, 6:30 pm

        Or when that crime does not fit in to their agenda. Witness the Virginia Beach shooting and how quickly the media dropped that story. Shooter black, Democrat, and used pistols. Victims corralled in Gun Free zone. Absolutely none of the governor’s knee jerk laws would have made any difference. Governor – we need to restrict guns to one a month. Fact -one gun purchased in 2016 and one gun purchased in 2018. Governor – we need universal background checks. Fact-both guns purchased legally, shooter passed background checks for guns and suppressor. And so it goes.

    • Steve August 2, 2019, 1:01 pm

      Well stated.

  • Bob Peterson August 2, 2019, 8:59 am

    OK, let’s forget about the distinction between AR15 and M16, semi auto and assault rifle, precedent and all the rest of these distractions. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to provide the civilian population with a firewall against tyranny foreign or domestic. Self/home defense, Hunting and target shooting are all valid activities that a firearm can be used for but that’s not why the 2nd amendment is in the constitution, located where it is in the constitution, (after the first amendment). Clue, the amendments are listed in rank of critical importance to a free state.

    • Jim August 2, 2019, 1:24 pm

      Bob, spot on. That was my first thought as well. The 2nd Amendment was not written with the mindset of personal or home defense but citizens last resort defense against tyrannical government.

    • Shan August 2, 2019, 1:32 pm

      Bingo. To protect individual liberty. This is the definition of Tryany.

  • Clint W. August 2, 2019, 8:57 am

    There ought to be a widely viewed venue that refutes judges who make specific statements that are glaringly wrong, gross generalizations, and outright lies. This judge would have a long list just on this one ruling. If the media followed the 5 W’s of old, kept their political left leaning reporting out of it, then a newspaper article exposing all the wrong things this woman based her ruling on would be front page. When that day happens, there will be aircraft ‘N’ numbers on pigs.

  • Paul August 2, 2019, 8:53 am

    Firearms are firearms, no such thing as an assault rifle only rifles that can be used for an assault, which could be single-shot muzzleloaders in the right hands…oh yeah, that’s what we used 200 years ago to create this land of the FREE!

    • Zupglick August 2, 2019, 9:53 am

      I’ve got a 9mm AIR RIFLE that has proved to be fairly efficient at killing or so a couple of hogs could attest.

  • joefoam August 2, 2019, 8:49 am

    I keep looking at the constitution and can’t seem to find the phrase that say gun ownership can be limited by some federal judge. Can we have her help me out with that?

  • BR549 August 2, 2019, 8:44 am

    So pretty, yet so incredibly STUPID.

    Before the French Revolution, women were not allowed to hold such positions because they too easily became victims of their own “sensations”, as was the term back then. They couldn’t be trusted to follow the law because their emotions always got in the way and they were so convinced they knew better.

  • Bob L August 2, 2019, 8:19 am

    Obama appointee of course !!!

  • Me August 2, 2019, 8:12 am

    And here I thought a judges personal biases were not be put in their judgements.

  • AJ August 2, 2019, 7:56 am

    Can we please get rid of judges who misinterpret constitutional law? I mean seriously, allowing these idiots to judge based on their emotional bias is unconstitutional in itself.

    • Kent August 2, 2019, 8:07 am


    • phil davis August 2, 2019, 9:02 am

      If any of you were in Afghanistan…what would you prefer in the fight…a Taraus G2C or an AR 15? One gun designed for combat and the other for self defense

      • kjon24 August 2, 2019, 2:48 pm

        AR-15s ARE NOT used in the military for combat you BOZO TROLL nor are Taurus pistols !!! BTW … you don’t even know how to correctly spell the word (and maker of the pistol you are B.S.ing about) T-A-U-R-U-S so I KNOW for SURE you are obliviously stupid about what you claim to know about. The closest you ever came to the AOR (Afghanistan or ANY other combat area) is in your Unicorn Dreams or your X-Box in Mommy’s house so give it up SnowFlake !!!

  • Jethead12 August 2, 2019, 7:42 am

    Amen…..here is a supposedly educated in the law individual with precedence to guide her decision and yet she fails miserably. It just shows that these kooks do not operate within the framework that our forefathers laid out for this great nation. They will make shit up. We need to stand together and smack these libtards back to the Stone Age by being proactive and helping Trump win the presidency in 2020 so that he can appoint another SC justice when that bag of bones keels over and insure that our 2nd Amendment rights are protected for generations to come.

  • shrugger August 2, 2019, 7:26 am


    • Shan August 2, 2019, 9:23 pm

      Assualt rope?

      • D.J. August 8, 2019, 1:32 pm

        Man , now that’s really funny !!!!!!!!
        Good one , Shan !

  • Vincent Sabatino Sr. August 2, 2019, 7:22 am

    There is a very Distinct Difference between an AR 15 and an “Assault Rifle” First ,AR doesn’t mean Assault Rifle or Automatic Rifle which cannot even be bought or owned by the average Citizen!
    Ignorance of the Law is not a “Protective Clause” under the Law ! One cannot say “I didn’t know that was Law ” and get away with a Crime !
    Ignorance of the difference between an AR-15 and an “Assault Weapon” is not a Reason for a Judge to Legislate or Create Law or even Define the Difference between the TWO DIFFERENT WEAPONS From “The Bench”
    Many people including Judges think they Know everything about what weapons will and will not do and they are Wrong in so many ways ! I bet this “Judge” never even saw an AR-15 Close Up and it’s obvious because of his calling it an assault weapon, he knows nothing about weapons! Before putting Mouth in operation it’s always best to engage Brain if one is handy ! There is plenty of reading material involving Weapons and This “Judge “should read up on Weapons before “Judging them”

  • Jay August 2, 2019, 7:14 am

    No where in Our Constitution Declaration of Independence or any explanation in the amendments, bill of rights, does it say that Judges can inject there own belief into what the Constitution says in order to enact policies, laws and or restrictions on, We The People. In fact it is very self explanatory and self evident that all is written for changing times and places all restrictions on government as a whole entity with three separate powers!

    • Dan August 2, 2019, 7:40 am

      Exactly. That is just her personal opinion, and has nothing to do with constitutional law, which she is ignoring. The judicial branch has been and still is over reaching into making laws instead of only interpreting them. One judge’s personal opinion means no more than any one else’s personal opinion.
      As the saying goes, Opinions are like aholes, everyone has one…
      Just because she is a judge does not make her opinion law. That is for Congress to decide, not her.

  • John August 2, 2019, 5:45 am

    It is the shit state of the country next to NY, so what would you expect. It is no wonder people leaving CA. are by far the largest population leaving a state. Just ask AZ as we get these wack job CA people moving here by the hundreds and ruining a once great state. They come here and act like they own the world. They have an attitude problem, and walk around with a chip on their shoulder. You can pick them out just by striking up a conversation with them. They are brainwashed liptards and the main reason they leave is because of taxes, not guns or illegal immigration. One day soon I hope, that fault line lets go and that shit state drops in the ocean. They go from one moron governor to one who is even worse, if that is possible.

  • Robert foster August 2, 2019, 5:25 am

    So in California i can protect myself but am limited in my effectiveness because I can\’t use an incredibly effective killing machine. Oh well its double barrel shotgun with double ought buck shot for me.

  • Danko August 2, 2019, 5:24 am

    What a dumb bitch

  • Edward Munster August 2, 2019, 4:08 am

    So if a judge is found to be in contempt with the constitution by a supreme court, why can’t they be immediately dismissed and jailed? Who watches the watchers? Obviously no one.

    • Dan August 2, 2019, 7:48 am

      That’s right, no one watches or removes them. Have you ever heard of any federal judge being removed? I haven’t.

      • Frederick Charles Jones August 2, 2019, 8:31 am

        Can we contact the Justice Dept. in DC and ask what it would take to get one removed?

        • Robert Messmer August 2, 2019, 6:36 pm

          Federal Judges can only be removed by impeachment. It can be done but it is very rare. Idiot District Judges never make it to the Appeals Court while idiot Appeals Court Judges never make it to the Supreme Court or at least that is the hope. She will likely remain a District Court Judge her entire career.

    • Bob Peterson August 2, 2019, 9:09 am

      That’s a good point. Judges do need a measure of security so that they have the latitude to rise above the fray and arrive at an impartial, unemotional decision;however, as in anything having to do with human behavior there must be lines drawn which if crossed require push back, remediation or punishment. This lady’s lack of understanding of the law of the land is so egregious that some form of intervention should be obvious.

  • TexDad August 2, 2019, 3:54 am

    Heller said unprotected arms must be both dangerous and unusual. There’s nothing unusual about America’s favorite rifle.

  • Dr Motown July 31, 2019, 8:40 am

    Most ignorant rationale I have ever heard

  • Monte johnson July 30, 2019, 11:38 am

    Stupid judge doesn’t know wtf she is talking about

    • Frederick Charles Jones August 2, 2019, 8:32 am

      I bet she can’t even define “assault weapon.”

      • Robert Messmer August 2, 2019, 6:40 pm

        Not a fair bet. “Assault weapon” is a non-sense term as a weapon is inanimate and rather it is an “assault weapon” or a “defensive weapon” depends solely on how it is used.

  • KEVIN GREEN July 30, 2019, 11:16 am

    Disingenuous if not tongue in cheek. An outright liar throwing out personal opinion roadblocks. Took an oath to follow the law doesnt matter when she has an hidden agenda

  • SuperG July 30, 2019, 10:24 am

    Another out of touch liberal judge, who probably lives in a gated community, who knows nothing about what Americans use for self-defense. I’m not shocked by her ignorance of firearms, nor her ignorance of the American people. When you live in an ivory tower, and only drive past the average American in your Mercedes-Benz on your way to the opera house, you lose touch with reality.

  • Eric July 29, 2019, 2:59 pm

    Well I guess you could say that the First Amendment doesn’t protect the internet then?

    • Drew July 30, 2019, 1:22 am

      Ask this fucktard and she’ll tell you it must be, because its not in common use. Remind her of the recent video released that show 4 assholes invading a guys house. Each carrying a handgun, more than likely holding at least 15 rounds each. Even with a standard cap mag of 30 rounds he’s still out gunned with his AR15. I read Heller. How the fuck did this moron get this job?

      • ro July 31, 2019, 12:53 pm

        don’t forget….it is a job for LIFE…..that needs to change

      • John August 2, 2019, 5:47 am

        Most likely by spreading her legs.

        • Gary August 2, 2019, 7:34 am

          This libtarded judge needs to get her coochie reamed.

      • Retnavet August 2, 2019, 6:48 am

        She didn’t get that round mouth eating square meals

      • Hillary lost, get over it August 2, 2019, 7:54 am

        Her looks, of course. Plus a little time on her back , like her bud Kameltoes.

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend