California got hammered over it’s assault weapon ban in court. The anti-gun state is consistently convinced in its on righteousness on guns, that they couldn’t ever be wrong on the issue–particularly with regard to constitutionality–and so they’ll fight pretty much any ruling from a court that goes against them.

In other words, they appealed the ruling on the assault weapon ban.

Shocking, I know.

Still, they did it and, in a way, it’s probably a good thing as the Supreme Court will have to take up an assault weapon ban case sooner or later.

This case isn’t close to being at that point, though. Right now, California is just appealing the ruling.

And the Second Amendment Foundation just filed a response brief.

Attorneys for the Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in a federal lawsuit which overturned California’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” have filed a 65-page response brief to the state’s appeal of its loss in a case known as Miller v. Bonta.

…

California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed an appeal with the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

“The state is struggling to argue its ban on modern semiautomatic firearms is permissible, but there is no historical analogue supporting such a ban,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “California is attempting to ban firearms which are in common use, after claiming they are only suitable for military use. But that argument ignores one of the major reasons for protecting the individual right to keep and bear arms found in the Second Amendment.”

“California’s arguments fall far short of credulity,” added SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “It is obvious from the outset that the state is trying to mask its efforts to regulate firearms under the sort of means-end scrutiny which the Supreme Court in Bruen clearly rejected.”

Even if I weren’t pro-gun, I think I’d still be forced to agree with both of these gentlemen.

There’s no historic analog to an assault weapon ban anywhere that I’ve seen in my own study of history, especially as the claim they’re “only suitable for military use” would seemingly fit perfectly in the framework of why we have a Second Amendment in the first place.

The right to defend yourself is important, but the opening clause in the Second Amendment–the one anti-gunners only seem to comprehend two words of–makes it obvious that it’s about defending the nation as a whole. How is a weapon supposedly only suitable for military use not protected?

Of course, the AR-15 and similar rifles are useful for folks other than the military, so it’s not like the claim they’re just a military gun has any validity at all anyway.

Frankly, I’ll be shocked if the assault weapon ban survives in the long run, especially in the aftermath of Bruen. It’ll be struck down sooner or later and struck down for good. In time, states will come to realize that you cannot restrict guns like that.

I just worry that it’ll be later rather than sooner.