Thread by @igorvolsky

1/ A federal judge has overturned CA's three-decade-old ban on assault weapons, calling the law a “failed experiment” & likening military-grade assault weapons to Swiss Army knives. 

Follow this 🧵 for a *thorough debunk* of the judge's infuriating ruling...

2/ When CA legislature passed assault weapon ban in 1989, it found that assault weapon “has such a high rate of fire & capacity for firepower that its function as a legitimate sports or recreational firearm is substantially outweighed by the danger that it can be used to kill"

3/ CA legislature came to this conclusion b/c military-style assault weapons are the weapons of choice for drug dealers, criminal gangs, hate groups & individuals bent on mass murder. These weapons efficiently kill as many people as possible in a short period of time ....

4/ Assault weapons w/ large capacity magazines:

- account for 22 - 36% of crime guns, used in 57% of mass murders 

- used disproportionately against law enforcement; 13 - 16% of guns used in murder of police are assault weapons

- victims have much higher morbidity rates

5/ Use of assault weapons in mass shootings *significantly* ⬆️ fatality of those events.

If assault weapon used: average of 38 fatalities or injuries

If assault weapon not used: average of 10 fatalities or injuries.

A 280%  ⬆️ in average casualties if assault weapons used

6/ Mass shootings w/ assault weapons & large capacity magazines produce an average of 43 fatalities or injuries

Mass shootings not involving assault weapons or large capacity magazines produce an average of 8 fatalities or injuries

7/ The judge in this case wrote that the firearms banned under CA's were not “bazookas, howitzers or machine guns,” but “fairly ordinary, popular, modern rifles.”

But truth is, assault weapons are nearly identical to the M-16.

8/ Primary difference is that M-16 allows shooter to fire in either automatic or semiautomatic mode.

An assault weapon fires only in semiautomatic mode. 

BUT -- this is not a material difference...

9/ Semi-automatic weapons can fire almost as rapidly as automatics. 30-round magazine empties in less than 2 seconds on automatic or in just 5 seconds on semiautomatic

Soldiers issued M-16s are instructed to use “rapid semi automatic fire,” b/c fully automatic is “less accurate”

10/ On to the Constitutional question...

#2A states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

11/ SCOTUS found #2A protects an individual right to keep & bear arms, but it also noted that “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited” and does not extend to “a right to keep & carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose"

12/ SCOTUS said #2A “by no means eliminates” a state’s “ability to devise solutions to social problems that suit local needs and values,” emphasizing that “[s]tate and local experimentation with reasonable firearms regulations will continue under the Second Amendment.”

13/ This judge appeared to disagree with this SCOTUS precedent, writing in his decision that "Government is not free to impose its own new policy choices on American citizens where constitutional rights are concerned” -- again, this appears to be a direct contradiction of SCOTUS

14/ Courts use 2-steps to analyze #2A challenges

STEP 1: Does law burdens conduct protected by #2A based on a“historical understanding of the scope of the right”? If it does not, law can be upheld; if it does burden conduct protected by #2A...

STEP 2: Apply a level of scrutiny

15/ Btw, it's worth pausing here and remembering that each of the 5 federal circuit courts that have considered the constitutionality of assault-weapon restrictions have upheld them under this 2-step framework....

16/ Assault weapons are NOT protected by #2A b/c they aren't in common use for self-defense.

On average, *2 rounds* are fired when firearms are used in self-defense; assault weapons—particularly those with large capacity mags—aren't necessary to engage in lawful self-defense

17/ Obviously, handguns are by far the preferred weapon for self-defense; rifles of any type  are rarely used in self defense (estimate we have shows rifles are used in 4.6% of justifiable homicides in self-defense)

18/ Assault weapons fall outside the scope of #2A b/c like the M16, they're most useful in military service.

SCOTUS has made clear that #2A does NOT protect weapons that are “most useful in military service,” such as the “M-16 and the like.”

19/ Every federal circuit court that has selected a level of scrutiny to apply to assault-weapon restrictions has determined that intermediate scrutiny applies because they do not rise to the level of a “substantial burden” on the core right protected by #2A

20/ And it's worth noting here that under CA's assault weapons ban, Californians can *still* arm themselves with semiautomatic, rimfire rifles, or semiautomatic, centerfire rifles that do not have any of the militaristic features of an assault rifle....

21/ A law satisfies intermediate scrutiny if (1) the government’s stated objective is “significant, substantial, or important”; and (2) there is a “‘reasonable fit’ between the challenged regulation and the asserted objective.”

22/ Is there doubt that government’s interest in promoting public safety & reducing gun violence is important & substantial?

Is there doubt assault weapons ban furthers State’s interests by restricting dangerous subset of firearms that pose danger to public & law enforcement?

23/ In prohibiting citizens from acquiring assault weapons, CA's assault weapon ban is reasonably fitted to these important public-safety interests...

24/ Judge also wrote in decision that an assault weapon ban is a "failed experiment"

This just embarrassingly wrong.

After federal assault weapon ban (in place from 1994 to 2004) expired, body count from gun massacres ⬆️ sharply & number of deaths per gun massacre ⬆️ sharply

25/ Worth noting -- and I think this just underscores the absolute absurdity/"lib owning" decision to liken assault weapons to Swiss army knives -- that firearm manufacturers *highlighted* the military-style qualities of assault weapons.

Early on, this was A MARKETING FEATURE

26/ Beginning in the 1980s, the gun industry marketed military-style rifles to the civilian gun market and openly used terms like:

“assault rifles”
“new breed of assault rifles” “spawned in the crucible of war”
“military-type”
“military-style”
“military autoloaders”

27/ Are we supposed to forget that in the wake of Iraq war, the NRA & firearm industry began employing veterans as spokespeople to help sell these guns, to send a message that: patriotism = supporting our troops by purchasing the weapons of war they used overseas?

28/ Even though assault weapons were marketed as military grade weapons and operate as such, the judge still wrote that assault weapons ”are fairly ordinary, popular, modern rifles. This is an average case about average guns used in average ways for average
purposes."

What?

29/ My question now is: how are lawmakers who campaign on reducing gun violence, passing a federal assault weapon ban, etc... going to respond.

It's not enough to condemn the decision. We voted for you to *act* -- so what is your plan? What are you going to *do*?

30/ Democrats have a narrow majority in Congress so there is some pathway for advancing reforms -- what is your plan for advancing life-saving measures during this period?

What is your plan for ensuring any new laws survive an ideologically conservative Supreme Court?