Bruen invalidates baton law?

[mk2dave]

Mods, move me if I belong somewhere else.

About a week ago I read that a CA judge stopped the law which made batons illegal in CA. Basically the argument is that the 2nd allows for self defense in and out of the home, and batons are just a non lethal alternative to firearms.

Is this true? Has it been reversed yet? Any other laws I should be aware of in regards to batons?

I'm not convinced a baton is for me, but the option merits investigation if legality isn't an issue.

[natman]

https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-appeals-district-court-decision-overturning-100-year-old

The district court overturned a law outlawing "billy clubs". The state has appealed to the Ninth, AFAIK the Ninth has not YET granted an appeal.

If past experience is any guide, the Ninth will put a stay on the lower court's decision and it will go into 2A limbo along with the AW ban reversal, the +10 mag reversal, etc, etc.

There's a thread in the CA litigation subforum for more details:

https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=28394716

[RickD427]

Mods, move me if I belong somewhere else.

About a week ago I read that a CA judge stopped the law which made batons illegal in CA. Basically the argument is that the 2nd allows for self defense in and out of the home, and batons are just a non lethal alternative to firearms.

Is this true? Has it been reversed yet? Any other laws I should be aware of in regards to batons?

I'm not convinced a baton is for me, but the option merits investigation if legality isn't an issue.

Nope.

NYSRPA v Bruen only invalidated a New York state statute. It's holding did not address any California statute. The dicta of NYSRPA may provide a lot of support to other cases that challenge California law, but NYSRPA didn't do nothing to California law.

One such "other case" is Fouts v Bonta in which Mr. Fouts challenged California's baton statute using the reasoning of NYSRPA. He prevailed in his suit in District Court and the trial judge issued an injunction prohibiting enforcement of the statute. But the statute has not been overturned, and it still remains on the books. The state has appealed. We will have to await the appellate decision before we will know if the statute is overturned or not.

[mk2dave]

Thank you gents for the info. I had a feeling I was missing something!

[bohoki]

will this have an effect on all "dangerous weapon" laws because isn't the defintion of an armament a dangerous weapon

what next ballistic knives? ninja stars? sword canes? brass knuckles?

[Rustlin’ Jack]

will this have an effect on all "dangerous weapon" laws because isn't the defintion of an armament a dangerous weapon

what next ballistic knives? ninja stars? sword canes? brass knuckles?

The challenge was only levied against the part of the law prohibiting a billy. The other weapons were not addressed and are still currently illegal. A separate challenge against each specific weapon would be needed to deal with them. Bonta clarified in a news release that the billy ruling includes collapsible/expandable batons, which, for the moment, enjoy an injunction prohibiting enforcement.

[NorCalBusa]

Nope.

NYSRPA v Bruen only invalidated a New York state statute. It's holding did not address any California statute. The dicta of NYSRPA may provide a lot of support to other cases that challenge California law, but NYSRPA didn't do nothing to California law.

One such "other case" is Fouts v Bonta in which Mr. Fouts challenged California's baton statute using the reasoning of NYSRPA. He prevailed in his suit in District Court and the trial judge issued an injunction prohibiting enforcement of the statute. But the statute has not been overturned, and it still remains on the books. The state has appealed. We will have to await the appellate decision before we will know if the statute is overturned or not.

What? But Amazon won't take my new sap, er tire checker back...