CA judge rejects law banning carry, possession of billy clubs

In a ruling likely to outrage Second Amendment opponents such as President Joe Biden, a California court has rejected a state ban on carrying and possessing billy clubs, citing the constitution as justification, as Fox News reports.

The ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by plaintiff Russell Fouts, who went up against state Attorney General Rob Bonta over the state law criminalizing not just the carrying but also the mere possession of the weapon at issue.

Billy club ban rejected

Judge Roger Benitez was the jurist behind the ruling, and in his opinion, he began, “This case is about a California law that makes it a crime to simply possess or carry a billy.”

“This case is not about whether California can prohibit or restrict the use or possession of a billy for unlawful purposes,” Benitez added, making a critical distinction.

In the end, the judge struck down the California ban in question by citing the Second Amendment in his reasoning.

Historical analysis proves critical

In reviewing the history of the Second Amendment's application and its relevance to the billy club ban, Benitez found the purported restrictions untenable.

“The Second Amendment protects a citizen's right to defend one's self with dangerous and lethal firearms,” he wrote. “But not everybody wants to carry a firearm for self-defense. Some prefer less-lethal weapons.”

He went on, “A billy is a less-lethal weapon that may be used for self-defense. It is a simple weapon that most anybody between the ages of eight and eighty can fashion from a wooden stick, or a clothes pole, or a dowel rod.”

“To give full life to the core right of self-defense,” he added, “every law-abiding responsible individual citizen has a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms like the billy for lawful purposes.”

Turning to the historical aspect of the assessment, the judge explained, “In early America and today, the Second Amendment right of self-preservation permits a citizen to 'repel by force' when 'the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent that injury.'”

Self-defense right preserved

In Benitez's opinion, to address such possibilities, “the Founders provided a built-in vehicle by which the Constitution could be amended.”

That right, he declared, cannot be amended by “a single state, no matter how well intended,” and he declined to use to court to accomplish such a maneuver by alternate means, striking a blow against those who want the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens to be curtailed at the whims of the elites.