The law made it a crime to possess or carry these basic weapons.
Benitez firmly declared that the intent of the person in possession of such a club is key. In his verdict, the judge noted, “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.”
The judge observed that the modern definition of a billy club ranges far from the short wooden stick that police officers would historically deploy. It could be a “metal baton, a little league bat, a wooden table leg or a broken golf club shaft.”
The billy club is often referred to as a billystick, truncheon or a baton.
All of these, according to the ruling, are capable of being utilized for self-defense and are not as deadly as a gun.
The Second Amendment has historically been interpreted to cover weapons other than firearms, and the definition of “arms” is expansive.
In this vein, Benitez stated, “The Second Amendment protects a citizen’s right to defend oneself with dangerous and lethal firearms. But not everybody wants to carry a firearm for self-defense. Some prefer less lethal weapons. A billy is a less lethal weapon that may be used for self-defense.”
The judge wrote that it is simple to envision people carrying such clubs on everything from daily walks to hikes to protect themselves from human or animal threats.
Benitez concluded, “To give full life to the core right of self-defense, every law-abiding responsible citizen has a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms like the billy for lawful purposes.”
