You've probably gotten the word by now that U. S. District Judge Roger Benitez has found California's so-called "assault weapon" ban Unconstitutional. Bearing Arms had the story on October 19, by Cam Edwards entitled Breaking: "Saint" Benitez Declares California "Assault Weapon" Ban Unconstitutional.
U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez delivered another scathing rebuke to the state of California on Thursday, just weeks after declaring the state’s ban on “large capacity” magazines unconstitutional. This time around it was the state’s ban on “assault weapons” that was before the judge, in a case known as Miller v. Bonta. Benitez was unsparing in his criticism of the law, which he says bars ordinary Californians from possessing commonly-owned arms that are protected by the language of the Second Amendment.
If gentle readers have not already, they should read the whole article. This is a big win, though I expect it to be appealed to the Nineth Circus Circuit, if it hasn't already. I bring this up as prelude to the following:
Dean Weingarten at Ammoland.com, also on Thursday, had a piece explaining Marxist Ideology and the Push to Ban Militia Weapons in the USA.
Under the ideology of cultural Marxism and the framework of Marxist “Woke” ideologies, power must be taken from a majority population. Firearms, as noted by the Marxist and Chinese mass murderer Mao, are a form of political power. Mao wrote:
Every Communist must grasp the truth: Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.
What Mao meant was only the Communist Party should be allowed to have guns. For a Marxist revolution to succeed, the people must be disarmed. The left in the United States has long pushed for the disarmament of the population. Recently, the left has primarily pushed for the banning of those arms that are commonly available and most suitable for militia use. These are modern semi-automatic rifles with standard capacity magazines of 30 rounds. These types of rifles are admirably suited to the defense of homes and neighborhoods, in part because they are understood to be extremely effective and, as such, have great deterrent value.
The American founding fathers understood the political power of firearms as well. They had just won a war with the superpower of the age, England. The English king had repeatedly attempted to disarm first the colonists and then the revolutionaries. The founders wished to make sure no future American government would be able to disarm the American people. Thus, they included the guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms in the Bill of Rights. The founders understood the right to keep and bear arms included defense against all threats from animals, criminals, other nations, and domestic tyrants.
Weingarten explains that for most of American history, guns were pretty easy to obtain. You could go into any hardware store and purchase rifles, shotguns and in many cases pistols along with the ammunition for these. While the "Wild West" was never really the Wild West, indeed Western movies should be taken as morality plays not real history, the fact that guns and ammunition were easily available is true.
In the 1930s, the first Federal gun control was passed with the National Firearms Act which made it much harder and more expensive to buy machine guns like the Thompson submachine gun. The NFA as a response to what was perceived as out of control crime. But while these types of weapons were harder to get because of the $200 tax, it was not impossible. That law, by the way is why we have the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms in the Treasury Department: because machine guns weren't banned but heavily taxed. It should have been struck down. The next era of gun control was in the 1960s with the 1968 Gun Control Act, which required guns to be sold by Federal Firearms Licensees. In both cases, politicians used the perceived increase in crime to expand government powers.
As Americans perceived the growth of the political bureaucracy and the disfavor with which the Constitution was held by the political class, resistance to disarmament grew. The push to ban handguns failed. As a way to revive the failing fortunes of those pushing for population disarmament, Josh Sugermann advocated for a ban on “Assault Weapons” in 1988. From Reason.com:
Josh Sugarmann, founder and executive director of the Violence Policy Center, laid out this strategy of misdirection and obfuscation in a
1988 report on “Assault Weapons and Accessories in America.” Sugarmann observed that “the weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.”
He added that because “few people can envision a practical use for these guns,” the public should be more inclined to support a ban on “assault weapons” than a ban on handguns. While handguns are by far the most common kind of firearm used to commit crimes, they are also the most popular choice for self-defense. Proscribing “assault weapons” therefore sounds more reasonable.
Sugarmann’s predictions fell flat. The market for semi-automatic rifles grew and grew. The more the left attempted to ban them, the more popular they became. Much of the popularity came from a growing resistance to the “Deep State” as the people became dissatisfied with the disconnect between what politicians did and what they said. The Second Amendment gained vocal and organized supporters. A ten-year failed federal “Assault Weapon” ban was not renewed. A super majority of states reformed their gun laws, removing more and more infringements. The Supreme Court affirmed the Second Amendment meant what it said. At present, over half of the United States do not require a permit to carry a loaded handgun, openly or concealed.
Judge Benitez has hit on the reason for the popularity of the AR-15. It is modular, which means as a platform it is easily customizable to each persons needs. But let Benitez tell it:
Like the Swiss Army Knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment. Good for both home and battle, the AR-15 is the kind of versatile gun that lies at the intersection of the kinds of firearms protected under District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and United States v Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).
Finally, we come to an recent example of just why the Second Amendment was written in the first place, and why it is so important. In a article today by Hank Vanderbeek he cites the Hamas Massacre: The New Face of Gun Control. If more Israelis had been armed, the death toll would have been less.
On October 7, the day Hamas attacked Israel, Inbal Rabin-Lieberman, a 25-year-old security coordinator at the Kibbutz Nir Am settlement located near the Gaza Strip, saved lives because she had a gun. After the kibbutz came under attack, Inbal hurriedly opened the armory and distributed guns to the twelve-member security team.
She caught the Hamas murderers unawares because they were not expecting to meet armed resistance. Lieberman killed five terrorists while the others gunned down twenty-five before the Israeli Defense Force arrived. Because of her actions, Nir-Am was the only settlement bordering the Gaza Strip that did not suffer Israeli casualties during Hama’s attack.
The number of Israelis killed in the terrorist attack is over 1,400. How many of those deaths could have been averted had more Israelis owned guns? Israel has draconian gun-control laws, worse than those in New York City. Only three percent (3%) of Israeli citizens own guns (compared to about thirty-two percent (32%) of U.S. citizens).
Vanderbeek notes that our own Department of (in)Justice has warned that due to our wide open borders, whole terror cells may be moving across the border and embedding themselves in America, to spring to life on the orders of some foreign controller. For that matter, enemy states may have sent people into America to foment chaos in preparation for an invasion. At least Israel had tight border security, though it was easily breached nonetheless.
The Hamas terrorists were able to get into Israel and kill innocent civilians despite Israel having one of the toughest border security systems in the world, whereas the United States has wide-open borders. Anyone, regardless of their affiliation and country of origin can enter the U.S. at will. Millions a year have been pouring in since January 2020. Is the United States becoming safer as a result? The Justice Department is now warning that terrorist threats were fast evolving in the U.S. and that “we cannot and do not discount the possibility that Hamas or other foreign terrorist organizations could exploit the conflict to call on their supporters to conduct attacks on our own soil.”
The point of all three stories is that Marxists of whatever stripe, are always looking to strip us of our rights to self defense under whatever guise seems to work. They have used perceived rising crime in the past to infringe on our Second Amendment. While the Second Amendment community has had a number of wins lately, Marxists, like Lucifer himself, never sleeps and never gives up. We must remain vigilant. We must also train regularly to ensure that we are ready should we be struck, as Israel was. It is not enough to merely have a gun, but to think about and train with it. Oh, and carry it with you at all times. It doesn't do any good if it is at home. Our own government acknowledges the truth, though they won't do anything to fix it. It depends upon those of us on the scene where and when it happens. As the old Boy Scout motto said: Be prepared.
