California's Defense of Baton Ban Is Really Something Else

By Jpogi at English Wikipedia - Transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons., Public Domain,

Most people who are interested in having a baton or billie club for self-defense should probably reconsider. Contrary to what some think, to use them effectively, you need to know what you're doing. Most of us don't.

But the fact that clubs would be accurately described as "arms" means that they fall under the purview of the Second Amendment.

Unsurprisingly, California has banned batons and purpose-made billie clubs because of course they did. They can't ban guns, but they'll ban anything else they think they can get away with, particularly since many people don't think of the Second Amendment applying to things other than firearms.

The ban on batons is being challenged in court. For a number of reasons, this kind of flew under the radar, but a lawsuit is happening.

And California defending the ban for the most bizarre reason imaginable.

So clubs are "likely to cause serious bodily harm" and you can just get a handgun, which...isn't likely to cause serious bodily harm?

I'm sorry, but this has to be the most bizarre defense of a ban I've ever seen.

Another argument they present is that batons aren't common self-defense weapons, which means they don't fall under "in common use." Of course, I touched on that just the other day. I find that to be a problematic defense, particularly when California heavily restricts gun ownership and the lawful carry of firearms and bans the carry of batons and similar weapons.

Yet most of the discussion really revolves around batons and clubs as being too "brutal" a tool to be permitted into civilian hands because "you might 'beat someone to death'" with one.

Now, I'm a gun guy. I prefer firearms and vehemently oppose any restriction on the right to keep and bear firearms.

But the idea that a weapon might be used in a way that takes someone's life is sufficient reason to ban it is incredibly problematic, especially coming from California. After all, can't the same be said of firearms, knives, rope, fists, feet, knees, pipes, sporting equipment, and so on?

Sure, in this case, they're saying people can have firearms, but the argument is too easily applied to many other things.

Yes, you can beat someone to death. It can even happen after a single blow.

But you can also fend off an attacker with any number of other weapons besides a firearm without necessarily killing them. That's preferable for many people. The term is "less-lethal" as opposed to "non-lethal" for a reason.

And honestly, it would be easier to accept this supposed reasoning if California wasn't so hostile to gun ownership and hadn't passed a carry killer bill in the aftermath of Bruen. If they genuinely valued the right to self-defense with a firearm, it would be easier to swallow that they view it as a superior self-defense tool while the batons were more the tool of a mugger or something.

Yet they did pass those bills. They do have a long and storied history of restricting gun rights. As such, it's impossible to believe this is anything but a handy excuse to defend this ban while they try to figure out how to ban firearms as well.