Federal Judge Roger Benitez in the case of Fouts v Bonta recently ruled California’s longtime ban on billy clubs (defined vaguely and potentially including many types of objects, for example any stick intended as a weapon) as an unconstitutional infringement of our right to bear arms.
The ruling was immediately appealed by Attorney General Bonta to the Ninth Circuit.
It’s possible that before the Ninth rules on the merits, it may issue some type of injunctive relief resurrecting the now unconstitutional law. Such relief was attempted after the May v Bonta ruling but was quickly reversed as it runs contra to the spirit and purpose of injunctive relief in preserving constitutional rights.
For now though, it is possible, for the first time in well over a hundred years, to purchase various types of billy devices. Or to make one yourself. For example, right now you can go remove a table leg. Or unscrew a broom handle. Now you have a billy, congrats.
This opinion, like other Benitez opinions is a joy to read, sort of like those of Scalia and Alito.
I like how Benitez ties the 2A phrase “shall not be infinged” to the burden shifting that occurs once plaintiffs show they are within the text of 2A.
I also agree with his interpretation of Bruen as strongly favoring use of national traditions circa 1791 over those circa 1868:
This case could also go a different direction if the most significant time period
came long after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment and into the early 20th
century. That would also be a misreading of Bruen. Bruen teaches that the most
significant historical evidence comes from 1791, and secondarily 1868.
One key point missing from the opinion is that carrying a less lethal means of defense is important not only to those who elect not to carry a firearm, like in the opinion’s example of the young girl walking through a dangerous stretch filled with two-legged and four-legged threats, but is also is important for those of us who carry a firearm, to provide a less lethal alternative to deal with circumstances not quite justifying lethal force but which if not dealt with may soon escalate. A struggle on the ground, for example. This is a very important point that should have been briefed by counsel and amici, and mentioned in the opinion. Less lethal means preserve the efficacy and propriety of lethal means of defense, and obviously minimize harm to everyone. Not everyone can fare well in a fist fight.
Sticks and stones can break our bones, but the State’s shocking appeal to resurrect a law banning sticks, even after Bruen, chills us to the bone and can literally kill us if not killed first. It is amazing and frightening to observe what this state is doing to resist SCOTUS and preserve its monopoly on lethal force.
