The The Volokh Conspiracy reports that a judge in Placer County, CA, has ruled that nunchucks are covered by the 2nd amendment. The memorandom for dismissal and the defendant's reply to the DA's arguments in opposition make for interesting reading. The argument is as follows:
- The 2nd Amendment applies to the states.
- This includes the possession of arms in one's residence.
- The 2nd Amendment is not limited to firearms.
- Nunchucks are a type of arm covered by the 2nd Amendment.
Based on the defendant's reply it looks like the DA countered that the 2nd amendment is not unbounded and thus that the CA statute barring possession of nunchucks doesn't run afoul of the right to bear arms. The reply itself states that the legislature might, for example, ban possession of arms by felons, but that the categorical ban on possession by all persons outside of a self-defense school was overly broad.
The judge apparently bought that line of reasoning and ruled from the bench rather than issuing an opinion. Eugene Volokh assumes that the state will appeal, hence the "provisionally" in the title.
My $0.02: Felon or not, its ridiculous that California made simple possession of a set of 'chucks illegal. You gotta wonder how the legislature came up with its list of dangerous weapons; its a motley assortment of items, common and uncommon, which don't seem to be tied together by a common theme. I mean, really, are "air gauge knives" such a threat that they need to be called out for special treatment?
I wasn't able to find any material relating to the legislative history of the Danger Weapons Control Law1, but the mere mention of something as obscure as an air gauge knife makes it look to me like the list was probably assembled retrospectively over time in response to particular incidents. Which is just an idiotic way to do things from a design standpoint; every time you arbitrarily ban a particular weapon you just encourage people to find ways to work around the law. For example, here's how "shuriken" is defined:
(11) As used in this section, a "shuriken" means any instrument, without handles, consisting of a metal plate having three or more radiating points with one or more sharp edges and designed in the shape of a polygon, trefoil, cross, star, diamond, or other geometric shape for use as a weapon for throwing.
Does that mean its OK to possess needle type shuriken, since they only have two points? Or what about two double-ended needles annealed together in the center to form a cross, since they really can't be characterized as a "metal plate". Wouldn't it just be easier to focus on illegal actions like stabbing people rather than quibble about what does and does not count as a dangerous weapon?
1 Though this article draws a connection between the 1974 NY ban and the release of Enter The Dragon.
1 comment:
Some weapons are protected by the 2nd Amendment. Others are not. First, the 2nd Amendment (according to the current US Supreme Court) says that "arms" are anything you can wear or hold in your hand that is readily available for offense or defense. Nunchucks clearly apply. So do handguns. A jet fighter or bomb doesn't apply. Second, dangerous and unusual weapons are not protected. Dangerous and unusual means a weapon that is not usually used by law abiding citizens for a lawful purpose. Pipebombs don't apply. THey are dangerous and unusual. Neither do sawed-off shotguns. I'd say that throwing stars are probably dangerous and unusual. Nunchucks, however, are a weapon the California legislature says are okay to possess at a Karate school or at a museum. Additionally, you might use a nunchuck for protection (some people can do this and some might even prefer this). As such, nunchucks are protected by the 2nd Amendment. The two significant cases in this area, Heller v. DC (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) tell you everything you need to know.
Post a Comment