To the editor: It's getting ridiculous. U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez struck down a 100-year-old ban on batons because it is not “long-standing,” contradicting what he decided in 2021.
He based his ruling on the “originalist” Supreme Court's conclusion that, to be valid, such prohibitions must date back to the times of the Revolution or the Civil War. However, the court is expected to allow a ban on stocks for semi-automatic rifles, none of which date back to those times. Ridiculously inconsistent.
Also ridiculous is the plaintiff attorney's comment: “It is common sense that colonial times did not prohibit people from carrying sticks or having sticks in their homes.” Therefore, big sticks (truncheons) should be allowed, right?
Flamethrowers, hand grenades, machine guns, sarin gas, etc. were also not prohibited. So, they should be allowed it now, right?
Instead of using the originalist litmus test to avoid banning incredibly dangerous weapons, use the originalist test to choose which weapons are allowed. Only weapons will be permitted that, in the words of the Supreme Court, are deeply rooted in the American “history and tradition” of the late 18th century.
The right to bear such weapons will not be violated. Anyone can own and carry those traditional weapons, but nothing more. Weapons permitted by the originalists would include, yes, clubs, as well as daggers, swords, spears, and muzzle-loading pistols and muskets.
Obviously, nothing more advanced would be allowed.
Geoff Duane, Torrance
