California Court Overturns Billy Club Ban, Citing Second Amendment Rights

M

Man with no name

Joined
Jun 24, 2015
Messages
1,832
Russell Fouts, the plaintiff in this pivotal lawsuit, challenged the California statute that deemed the possession or carrying of a billy club illegal. Judge Roger Benitez, who presided over the case, ruled in favor of Fouts, stating that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to self-defense through various types of weapons. This decision underscores a significant extension of the Second Amendment, historically associated with firearms, to include non-firearm weapons such as billy clubs. The judgment pointed out the historical use of billy clubs by police forces, emphasizing their effectiveness as a less-lethal option compared to guns.
 
Last edited:
Man with no name said:
Russell Fouts, the plaintiff in this pivotal lawsuit, challenged the California statute that deemed the possession or carrying of a billy club illegal. Judge Roger Benitez, who presided over the case, ruled in favor of Fouts, stating that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to self-defense through various types of weapons. This decision underscores a significant extension of the Second Amendment, historically associated with firearms, to include non-firearm weapons such as billy clubs. The judgment pointed out the historical use of billy clubs by police forces, emphasizing their effectiveness as a less-lethal option compared to guns.
Click to expand...

Slippery slope, may not be a victory.......?

"emphasizing their effectiveness as a less-lethal option compared to guns"

That sounds Bad to me.

Legal self defense is legal self defense. Nothing more, nothing less.

You Never want a list of "options" that are required in a particular order for the self defense. All of that takes time. In a life or death situation, that's bad for the victim.
less than lethal has Zero bearing in my needs.

Where I live, if it's legal in a self defense situation to strike someone, I can(should) do more.
 
Crag the Brewer said:
Slippery slope, may not be a victory.......?

"emphasizing their effectiveness as a less-lethal option compared to guns"

That sounds Bad to me.

Legal self defense is legal self defense. Nothing more, nothing less.

You Never want a list of "options" that are required in a particular order for the self defense. All of that takes time. In a life or death situation, that's bad for the victim.
less than lethal has Zero bearing in my needs.

Where I live, if it's legal in a self defense situation to strike someone, I can(should) do more.
Click to expand...
If a stick/club is no longer prohibited at least you won't get popped for simple possession. So an additional option becomes available but you are not required to depend solely on it for your defensive needs. Hell, I'd buy that for a dollar!


 
Nunchucks were legalized in California in 2021, both possession and carry (specifically for self-defense), with a few limitations. But that was the result of a bill sponsored by two Asian legislators, and signed by the governor, not the result of a lower court ruling, so no appeal by the AG.

Of course I don't consider nunchucks to be a practical choice for self-defense, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the potential for whacking yourself in the head.

But still, it shows that even in California peoples right to armed self-defense is sometimes recognized by the state government.
 
Man with no name said:
If a stick/club is no longer prohibited at least you won't get popped for simple possession. So an additional option becomes available but you are not required to depend solely on it for your defensive needs. Hell, I'd buy that for a dollar!


Click to expand...
Yes, Agreed.... But I tend to worry
 
killgar said:
Nunchucks were legalized in California in 2021, both possession and carry (specifically for self-defense), with a few limitations. But that was the result of a bill sponsored by two Asian legislators, and signed by the governor, not the result of a lower court ruling, so no appeal by the AG.

Of course I don't consider nunchucks to be a practical choice for self-defense, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the potential for whacking yourself in the head.

But still, it shows that even in California peoples right to armed self-defense is sometimes recognized by the state government.
Click to expand...
I think the nunchucks were approved due to all of the Asian hate crime taking place in the state. The governor must have been feeling generous throwing a bone to the serfs because he knew if he didn't people might resort to more drastic measures like carrying a firearm without the states permission and we can't have that now can we!

 
Man with no name said:
Any news regarding freedom is good news when you're living deep behind enemy lines! California wasn't always like this, so don't think that it can't happen to your state.
Click to expand...
Much as it pains me to say, the PRK is my state. While I think the world of Judge Benitez, the dimwitted 9th Circuit won't possibly let this stand as long as Governor Knewnuthin and his crony AG du jour continue to be allowed to waste funds from the ever-shrinking tax base to fight to maintain clearly unconstitutional laws (and, by the by, give away the store to illegal aliens who have never, and on a net basis will never, be anything but economic parasites).

Frankly if this can be extended to saps, I'm all for it, though.
 
I thought it was only shot down because they were too vague and didn't clearly define what a " Billy " was ?
 
No. It was shot down because the "arms" protected by 2A are not strictly limited to firearms (note also the recent decision, since appealed, that overturned Hawaii's balisong ban), and because not all CA residents might want a lethal force tool as their carry tool, and billies give force level options that guns don't.

Feel free to check it out for yourself.
 
Last edited:
Crag the Brewer said:
Slippery slope, may not be a victory.......?

"emphasizing their effectiveness as a less-lethal option compared to guns"

That sounds Bad to me.

Legal self defense is legal self defense. Nothing more, nothing less.

You Never want a list of "options" that are required in a particular order for the self defense. All of that takes time. In a life or death situation, that's bad for the victim.
less than lethal has Zero bearing in my needs.

Where I live, if it's legal in a self defense situation to strike someone, I can(should) do more.
Click to expand...
So the concept of reasonable and proportionate force doesn't hold much weight?
 
I think most of us would love Cali to appeal this. They will lose before or at SCOTUS. That makes the decision/precedent binding nationally, not just in Cali. That is kinda the reason a lot of gun control advocates didn't want DC or NY appealing their losses lower level losses with Heller or Bruen.
 
FearDoiteain said:
I think most of us would love Cali to appeal this. They will lose before or at SCOTUS. That makes the decision/precedent binding nationally, not just in Cali. That is kinda the reason a lot of gun control advocates didn't want DC or NY appealing their losses lower level losses with Heller or Bruen.
Click to expand...
They'll only lose at SCOTUS, and only if the left can be prevented from packing the USSC. The 9th Circuit Teter ruling (since appealed) notwithstanding, was clearly an anomaly. The 9th is the only thing between the PRK and the USSC. Same goes for the Caetano ruling--albeit from a different circuit--that held that "stun guns" (which, in reality, do and are neither) were also protected arms under 2A.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top