Thread by @2Aupdates

Judge Benitez: "Well, that's -- that's -- that's the problem. Is that, you know, California's got so many laws and -- you basically have to have a lawyer at your hip in order to know whether when you are handling a firearm you're violating the law and committing a felony."

https://twitter.com/2Aupdates/status/1442940613821751297

Benitez said during the Miller trial that "it dawned on [him] that the statute that bans this type of weapon actually discriminates against people of lower income," and they're good to use on the coyotes that are taking out his chickens.

Benitez asks California if there's a better source for the availability of banned-in-CA guns in other states than the companies distributing them. California says a government agency. Benitez asks which one would have that data. California: 🤷‍♂️

LOL

From day 2: "I've given this a lot of thought. And it strikes me, does it really matter how many shots somebody fired?"

"So I watched that video. And then he fired a weapon with the -- with -- with the -- again, what's been referred to as the evil features. And I frankly didn't see any difference, either in the firing rate or in the -- or in the accuracy of the weapon."

"Because the pistol grip adds -- yeah, adds accuracy to the weapon. Which one would hope that the state would agree that we would want people who use weapons in self-defense to have a more-accurate weapon rather than a less-accurate weapon, I think. I could be wrong."

California goes with the argument that it's fine to have guns that can fire rapidly and guns that can fire accurately, as long as they can't do both at the same time:

Benitez wonders if California will consider the grandfathering of "assault weapons" a loophole and try to ban existing ones:

Benitez, noting that California has already passed four progressively stricter "assault weapon" bans: "And so the slippery slope argument is not really just a -- is not hyperbole. It's real."

Benitez mentions that English is his second language:

Benitez: "But the fact of the matter is, as you know, I was born and raised in Cuba. I fled Cuba because a dictatorial government came into power."

"But it seems to me that the problem is that on the one hand we want weapons to be accurate, I hope. But apparently the state says, but we don't want them to be too accurate for too long."

"And I know I ask a lot of questions, and I apologize for that. But I'm just a curious guy."

Benitez: "So it strikes me that perhaps the state is making a determination that the value of a life of the victims is less than the value of the life of the victims in mass shootings, which is a -- a determination that I am not sure the state should ever be entitled to make."

Benitez: "But this case -- in this instance, they fired 30 rounds from the AR-15. Which, you know, I'm -- I'm going to take a wild guess that that was rapid firing. I mean, that's -- I know that's what I would do if I had to stop an intruder in my home."

California helps Benitez realize something: If it's already legal to add stuff to your stock to make it longer, why are adjustable stocks banned even if they keep the gun within the legal minimum when fully collapsed?

The state has no real answer and tries to deflect.

Benitez continues asking the state: If a rifle's stock makes it 30 inches at its minimum length, why is it a crime for it to adjust to be longer and less concealable?

"I know I interrupted you. But you asked -- you say things that causes me to -- to ask questions."

"I mean, the arrogance of the state is -- is incredible to say to these people, listen, you only get ten rounds. And if you can't deter the people that are coming to rape you, rob you, or murder you, too bad, so sad."

Benitez returns to the issue of adjustable stocks. California sticks to its argument that the state can ban them because the ATF once said that the ability to make a rifle's stock longer is a military feature:

"I'm not the brightest light bulb in the building, but I think I can determine what -- what the law is, or at least as I interpret the law."

"And so one -- one doesn't have to be a genius to figure out if the state prohibits being able to buy these weapons, the number of households that are going to have these weapons is going to go down. Right?"

"...this reminds me of an argument that was made in the ammunition case before me."

"So how many people do you suppose -- in keeping with your last comment -- how many people do you suppose do own assault weapons but would never confess to owning an assault weapon?"

"...you know, I somewhat sarcastically referred to the Second Amendment as not protecting foam baseball bats and down pillows."

California:

"Wait, wait, wait. That were in the District of Columbia is very different than having them at the Capitol. Those two things are not the same."

"...my hunting .30/06 could be used, if -- if I was called upon, to fight the Russians or the Chinese or the North Koreans, or whoever. I would use my .30/06. But I will tell you what. My .30/06 would not be as good a weapon to use as an AR-15 platform rifle"

Benitez: "If what you said was true, that the semiautomatic rifle is more dangerous -- if the semiautomatic rifle is more dangerous, then why don't we -- why don't we go ahead and ban semiautomatic weapons but legalize machine guns and -- and the M16s?"

Benitez: "There's a difference between the cycling rate and the firing rate. The cycling rate is a hypothetical rate which is a mechanical function, assuming that the weapon was adequately lubricated, et cetera"

"Are you afraid of guns, Mr. Echeverria?"

Huh?

"You know. You do know."

"Yeah. Okay."

Maybe not the best time to try throwing the judge's hypothetical from earlier back at him

California: "Again, nothing is stopping an individual from arming themselves in their home with any range of firearm they want, provided it's not a prohibited weapon."

California says there's a limit somewhere to what the state can ban, and that its numerous "assault weapon" bans were enacted "to plug the holes" in the previous ones. Benitez says that under that argument, the state could keep banning more guns forever:

California: "You can own an AR-15 in the state of California. You can own it in a rimfire form, with all of the features you want."

Benitez: "My wife was a chemistry teacher, Mr. Echeverria. I think I have a pretty good handle on what science is."