CA court ruled in 2013 that clubs are not protected arms

[nobody_special]

I just came across this, and a search did not turn up any results.

From early 2013, in People v. Liscotti, we have a published California appellate court ruling that says clubs are not arms protected by the 2nd amendment:

Although counsel argues in his appellant's brief that weapons such as these have been carried since the beginning of time, no evidence was introduced to that effect at the trial on this matter. Judicial notice of an important fact needs some substantiation based on evidence presented at a trial. (As an aside, historically, it appears to this court that billys, as used by the cavemen, were used primarily for hunting and for defense against animals, not as weapons for self defense against other cavemen. Or, if they were used against other cavemen, it was probably an escalation in use of force to gain an advantage, which would now be unlawful self defense....). Weapons traditionally found to be outside the scope of the protection of the Second Amendment have been: pipe bombs, United States v. Tagg (11th Cir. 2009) 572 F. 2d 1320, 1326; concealed weapons (State v. Chandler (1850); and, unmarked firearms, United States v. Carter (9th Cir. 2005).

The weapon in this case, a full size modified baseball bat, weighted with lead and wrapped in rope, does not appear to us to fall in to the classification of a weapon that would normally be possessed by a law abiding citizen for a lawful purpose. Instead, it appears to us to be a weapon which, by its very nature, increases the risk of violence in any given situation, is a classic instrument of violence, and has a home - made criminal a nd improper purpose. Likewise, it appears to be the type of tool that a brawl fighter or a cowardly assassin would resort to using, designed for silent attacks, not a weapon that would commonly be used by a good citizen. People v. Grubb (1965) 63 Cal. 2d. 614, 620. We conclude that possession of such a weapon is not protected by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Bad cases/defendants make for bad case law...

[glockman19]

The CA DOJ would classify the weapon above as a Blunt Object and Yes probably not covered by the 2A...

Now, Had he modified it to have nails coming out of it, tt may have been considered a Kanabo.

[fizux]

While I agree that such a weapon may not be practical for the average person to carry around to have available in case of confrontation, I start to wonder what a felon (or law abiding citizen in a "no-issue" county) is supposed to do to avail themselves of their second amendment rights?

Maybe we can ban felons from possessing firearms, but shouldn't felons be able to defend themselves in some fashion? I don't really have a good answer, but it seems a little harsh to tell a waitress with a tax evasion felony that she should just close her eyes and think of the Land of Oz if she ever gets raped.