https://reason.com/volokh/2024/02/23/court-strikes-down-california-ban-on-possessing-billy-clubs/ Court Strikes Down California Ban on Possessing Billy Clubs
EUGENE VOLOKH | 2.23.2024 6:40 PM
From Judge Roger Benitez's decision in Fouts v. Bonta(S.D. Cal.):
This case is about a California law that makes it a crime to simply possess or carry a billy. This case is not about whether California can prohibit or restrict the use or possession of a billy for unlawful purposes…. Historically, the short wooden stick that police officers once carried on their beat was known as a billy or billy club. The term remains vague today and may encompass a metal baton, a little league bat, a wooden table leg, or a broken golf club shaft, all of which are weapons that could be used for self-defense but are less lethal than a firearm….
The court struck down the law on Second Amendment grounds (citing, among other cases, Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), which suggested that stun guns were constitutionally protected arms). The historical analysis is long and detailed (read it here), but here's the conclusion:
The Second Amendment protects a citizen's right to defend one's self with dangerous and lethal firearms. But not everybody wants to carry a firearm for self- defense. Some prefer less-lethal weapons. A billy is a less-lethal weapon that may be used for self-defense. It is a simple weapon that most anybody between the ages of eight and eighty can fashion from a wooden stick, or a clothes pole, or a dowel rod. One can easily imagine countless citizens carrying these weapons on daily walks and hikes to defend themselves against attacks by humans or animals. To give full life to the core right of self-defense, every law-abiding responsible individual citizen has a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms like the billy for lawful purposes.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
In early America and today, the Second Amendment right of self-preservation permits a citizen to "'repel force by force' when 'the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent that injury.'" The Founders of our country anticipated that as our nation matured circumstances might make the previous recognition of rights undesirable or inadequate. For that event, the Founders provided a built-in vehicle by which the Constitution could be amended, but a single state, no matter how well intended, may not do so, and neither can this court. Alan Beck and Stephen Stamboulieh represent plaintiff.
Anonymous
>>1270334 What a stupid waste of time and resources to even hear this case.
Anonymous
>>1270337 california's fault for having a retarded law
Anonymous
>>1270337 blame fag states. idk the actual text of california's law, but NJ legit has a law on the books that says carrying any item for self defense outside your home other than pepper spray under 3/4th of an oz is a crime. like bear spray is a legal grey area because its over 3/4ths of an oz. until like 10 years ago it was illegal in nj to preemptivly arm yourself with a weapon for self defense inside your home.
Anonymous
>>1270340 >>1270343 Naah I'll blame the people who filed the lawsuit for wasting the court's time
Anonymous
>>1270348 they aren't wasting the courts time. they are suing to get their constitutionally protected rights recognized and to ensure the unconstitutional law is struck down. blame the california government for passing the unconstitutional law and bonta and newsome for enforcing it. what we need to do is any time a gun law is stuck down, all the legislators who voted for it and the governor who signed it and their families need to be personally responsible for paying the legal fees of the state, the plaintiff and the court.
Anonymous
>>1270348 cool, anytime someone sues for abortion rights, fag rights, drag queen rights, ect its wasting the court's time
Anonymous
>>1270354 >they aren't they are
>>1270355 None of those things would be wasting the court's time and your tears are delicious
Anonymous
>>1270354 >what we need to do is any time a gun law is stuck down, all the legislators who voted for it and the governor who signed it and their families need to be personally responsible for paying the legal fees of the state, the plaintiff and the court. Imagine hating the constitution this much
Anonymous
>>1270376 where does the constitution say legislators have immunity from passing unconstitutional bullshit?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1270362 >they are they aren't. they are getting an unconstitutional law struck down. cope
Anonymous
>>1270362 >None of those things would be wasting the court's time and your tears are delicious they would be since baby murder and child rape aren't in the bill of rights
Anonymous
>>1270383 >I"M OUTRAGED!11 we knew that already
Anonymous
>>1270386 no, you are clearly outraged see
>>1270362 and
>>1270348 and
>>1270337 Anonymous
>>1270379 Voting for unconstitutional legislation isn't a crime, therefore immunity isn't required. Its shocking how little you know about a topic you reee so loudly about.
Anonymous
>>1270436 >intentionally denying people their civil rights isn't a crime cool, alabama is about to ban blacks from voting
Anonymous
>>1270443 no they aren't after what happened last time
Anonymous
>>1270388 Point out the specific instances of outrage. All I'm seeing is
>>1270355 Anonymous
>>1270450 see
>>1270362 and
>>1270348 and
>>1270337 >What a stupid waste of time and resources to even hear this case. >Naah I'll blame the people who filed the lawsuit for wasting the court's time >they are prime seething
Anonymous
>>1270443 >intentionally denying people their civil rights isn't a crime Correct. It isn't illegal to vote for legislation that is eventually reviewed by the courts and found to be unconstitutional. Not only is it not a crime, given the incredibly interpretative nature of the constitution it would be nearly impossible to ever prove mens rea. Its the legislative branch's job to enact legislation and the judicial branch's job to review challenges. You have no clue how the government works.
>cool, alabama is about to ban blacks from voting They could try. Legislators would vote for it and it would immediately be struck down in court. None of this would be a crime.
Anonymous
>>1270446 whats the issue? you said it was fine for legislators to vote for unconstitutional laws
Anonymous
>>1270452 >the poster who called out stupid court decisions is actually seething and not the poster who brought up abortion out of nowhere Ok boomer
Anonymous
>>1270454 >Not only is it not a crime, given the incredibly interpretative nature of the constitution it would be nearly impossible to ever prove mens rea. except the dems who are passing this shit are literally calling them bruen response bills.
>immediately be struck down in court. you seem to think courts work faster than they do. dem courts try to drag their feet for years on shit. see young v hawaii where they tried to drag their feet for over 10 years hoping young would die
Anonymous
>>1270455 The surrender at Appomattox Court House was a military proclamation and not an actual law.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1270456 a. that poster is you, samefag
b. she is seething. there is no way a ban on arms in common use for self defense is constitutional so the fact she is seething over the court case just shows she is outraged
Anonymous
>>1270459 and? the constitution says you can't deny blacks their rights and you can't deny bill of rights rights, but you said its fine for legislatures to pass unconstitutional things. alabama should ban blacks and jews. as you said, its totally fine and legal and cool
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Newsom try ban stick. Stick can no be ban.
Anonymous
>>1270458 >except the dems who are passing this shit are literally calling them bruen response bills. This isn't relevant to anything I said. Its not a crime to vote on a bill that later gets challenged in court and gets struck down as unconstitutional. There is no statue for it. In fact, qualified immunity specifically prevents politicians from being held personally liable. In the event of suits brought for a violation of constitutional rights the state always pays, not individuals. Its the law. Deal with it.
>you seem to think courts work faster than they do. dem courts try to drag their feet for years on shit. see young v hawaii where they tried to drag their feet for over 10 years hoping young would die The speed at which the court works is irrelevant. This is how our system works. A law is passed. Don't like it? Challenge it in court. Court isn't moving fast enough for your liking? Cry about it. Don't like your politician for voting for laws you don't like? Vote them out. If you hate the constitution and democracy so much move to China or North Korea.
Anonymous
>>1270462 The constitution also says black people are 3/5th of a human and only white landowners can vote. You put too much faith in the constitution.
Anonymous
>>1270482 the constitution can be amended. are you aware
Anonymous
>>1270485 I don't know if you noticed but they made a strikethrough on the document and the words are still there
Anonymous
>>1270480 >This isn't relevant to anything I said. I you said >Not only is it not a crime, given the incredibly interpretative nature of the constitution it would be nearly impossible to ever prove mens rea.
In bruen it explicitly says they can't name literally every single fucking location as a sensitive place. NJ, california, NY and probably some other states I am forgetting literally wrote laws titled "bruen response bill" where they named literally every single place a sensitive place. pretty easy mens rea when the governors fucking straight up say they are doing it in response to bruen and the fucking bill says bruen response bill
>In fact, qualified immunity specifically prevents politicians from being held personally liable. qualified immunity needs to be ended is my argument
>In the event of suits brought for a violation of constitutional rights the state always pays, not individuals. CITATION NEEDED. because they state does not pay legal fees for gun court cases even when the people win. in fact california and either washington or oragon tried to do a fee shifting scheme where if you sued and the state won on even one of the counts you would need to pay back the whole thing, before it got struck down
>The speed at which the court works is irrelevant. This is how our system works. A law is passed. Don't like it? Challenge it in court. Court isn't moving fast enough for your liking? Cry about it. cool, banning judaism and drag queens, the court will hear your case in 2089
>Don't like your politician for voting for laws you don't like? Vote them out. If you hate the constitution and democracy so much move to China or North Korea. the majority does not have the right to strip the minority of their constitutionally protected human rights. or are you fine with alabama banning jews?
Anonymous
>>1270482 >The constitution also says black people are 3/5th of a human and only white landowners can vote. it literally doesn't.
Anonymous
Anonymous
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>1270492 Do you know what strikethrough text is or am I talking to another moron/Ivan?
Anonymous
>>1270494 Ahh so you failed history class as well as being retarded. Good combo.
Anonymous
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1270495 do you know what the definition of amend is. i would assume you do but are being retarded on purpose because this is /news/
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>1270482 >He doesn't know why blacks were allowed to even be 3/5ths of a human >He doesn't realize the north wanted them to be 0% human. >He doesn't realize that the south were the ones who wanted them to be 100% human. Interesting lack of knowledge. I'm sure being an stupid edgy teen in your 60s has worked out well for you.
Anonymous
>>1270488 >In bruen it explicitly says they can't name literally every single fucking location as a sensitive place. NJ, california, NY and probably some other states I am forgetting literally wrote laws titled "bruen response bill" where they named literally every single place a sensitive place. pretty easy mens rea when the governors fucking straight up say they are doing it in response to bruen and the fucking bill says bruen response bill None of this has anything to do with the argument. It is not a crime for a legislator to vote on a bill that later gets struck down as unconstitutional. Qualified immunity makes this the law.
>qualified immunity needs to be ended is my argument Great. Change the law. Until then, no crimes have been committed and there is no legal justification for anything you're advocating for.
>CITATION NEEDED Qualified immunity. Individual politicians are immune from civil liability.
>cool, banning judaism and drag queens, the court will hear your case in 2089 Sure. File a petition. Put a legal argument together and get an injunction with a circuit court judge while you wait. Something as silly as banning jews or drag queens would likely be refused to be heard by a higher court and immediately die in circuit but that's the way the judicial works. You can't just like it when it benefits you and not like it when it doesn't.
>the majority does not have the right to strip the minority of their constitutionally protected human rights You're absolutely right. Take your argument to court and convince a judge.
>or are you fine with alabama banning jews? I'm fine with Alabama voters electing Alabama legislators who pass legislation that is then reviewed and either passed or blocked by Alabama judges. I like the constitution and democracy. If you hate it so much move to Russia.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1270531 >None of this has anything to do with the argument. you said > it would be nearly impossible to ever prove mens rea.
they literally admitted to doing it on purpose
>It is not a crime for a legislator to vote on a bill that later gets struck down as unconstitutional. Qualified immunity makes this the law. goal post shift
>Qualified immunity. Individual politicians are immune from civil liability. not that, retard. I need the citation that showed NY paid back the people for the bruen suit or that california ever paid back for any of the gun cases they lost
>Sure. File a petition. Put a legal argument together and get an injunction with a circuit court judge while you wait. Something as silly as banning jews or drag queens would likely be refused to be heard by a higher court and immediately die in circuit but that's the way the judicial works. You can't just like it when it benefits you and not like it when it doesn't. except that doesn't happen. If anything its the opposite, cal currently has an injunction letting them have their ammo license system even though its unconstitutional. judges won't give an injunction for NJs awb even though its been years since the litigation started. dem judges are partisan activists
>Take your argument to court and convince a judge. democrat judges do not care about arguments or the law, they care about legislating from the bench
> I like the constitution and democracy. you clearly hate the 2nd and 14th amendments.
Anonymous
>>1270511 >thinks the north and the south differentiated in the late 18th century How did you get this confused?
Anonymous
>>1270544 They did on this issue. Would you like to know more?
Anonymous
>>1270554 I'd more like to know your source. States were in it for themselves until 1789, the Mason Dixon line was a border fight, not a slavery argument.
Anonymous
>>1270563 >Your source Imagine peeeelioning this hard.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/three-fifths-compromise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_Compromise The south wanted slaves to count 100% toward apportionment. The north believed only the free population should count.
The south wanted to use an expanding slave population to take over the government.
We see a similar situation with illegal immigration these days, where states like CA seek to allow an endless flow of illegal immigrants into the country to increase their electoral power.
Proving Democrats never change and their tactics remain the same as they every were.
Anonymous
>>1270568 seeing shills try to disingenuously weaponize history is pretty in line with putin's strategy, i guess
Anonymous
>>1270571 >PUTIN! >PUTIN! >THERE'S IVANS HERE I CAN SMELL IT >CALL NAFO >THERE'S IVANS I TELL YA! How'd you get this paranoid?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1270574 why did that upset you so thoroughly. can you not refute it
>seeing shills try to disingenuously weaponize history is pretty in line with putin's strategy, i guess Anonymous
>>1270571 its putin's fault that california literally uses illegals for the purpose of congressional delegates? remember when ny and cali flipped the fuck out over the 2020 census having the >are you an illegal question on it because they thought it would hurt their number of congress districts?
Anonymous
>>1270574 hello Ivan
>>1270579 hello Boris
Anonymous
>>1270579 i wish i could remember a time you were being honest
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>1270584 >I have an American birth certificate Sure you do Boris they manufacture them by the ton in Vladivostok along with fake Harvard degrees and fake real estate deeds.
Anonymous
>>1270584 >unlike you and obongo, I have an American birth certificate i've heard this script before. do you have a pastebin or something?
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>1270597 that's right, stay defensive so you can't smear your scripted shit all over
Anonymous
>>1270587 >>1270590 >>1270598 >gets btfo'd >samefags and blames the russians top kek, every time
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1270600 who else pays faggot shills such as yourself?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1270597 >another cable tv reference I'm sensing a pattern
don't bring a billy club to a gun fight
don't bring a billy club to a gun fight Sun 25 Feb 2024 02:10:26 No. 1270615 Report Quoted By:
Agent Infinity Concealable Baton, (Airweight) 30cm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sKktAyQ00w I'll get close and knock that gun out of your hand and then break your noggin, you person of color punk.
Anonymous
Imagine trying to ban sticks. I can't wait until they go after rocks and highly regulate scissors. Can't wait until RPS is a hate crime. Do Democrats realize they're insane people?
Anonymous
>>1270620 dems in NJ accidently banned slingshots. they copy pasted someone else's law (might have been california's), saw it said >slungshot, which is like a monkey's fist, and then "corrected" the "typo" to slingshot
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1270624 Why are Dems so afraid of people killing them with things? Are they doing something wrong?
Anonymous
>>1270568 >>1270554 the leftists ITT know they're wrong and are arguing disingenuously. Stop taking their bait, they just want to waste your time. You won, they lost, now move on instead of arguing with idiots.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1271028 both sides still had slaves at that point
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1270334 These are awesome.
Anonymous
>>1270624 NJ is a slave state and the model for what Democrats really want for the country.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1271034 the law that got struckdown in op banned slungshots
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1270337 >What a stupid waste of time and resources to even hear this case. Indeed but then the Lefties in California don't care, as the tax payers will pay the bazillion dollar tab for the lawyers.