"Unconstitutionally Vague"

California’s law against “assault weapons” is so vague as to be unconstitutional and is made to prohibit ownership of “scary-looking guns.” I leaves it up to the individual arresting officer to DECIDE whether or not the gun they’re looking at is, or is not an “assault weapon” and is "scary enough." It is, like the laws covering sexual harassment, something the individual officer (or the woman) can DECIDE whether or not it is illegal. Sexual harassment is “in the eye of the beholder” and a man can be cited if the woman “feels harassed,” even if she has to twist his words and actions to BE sexual harassment. In the “test case” for the lawsuit filed by the Second Amendment Foundation and Calguns Foundation, the gun was nowhere NEAR what intelligent people would call an “assault weapon,” or scary enough, but the cop decided it was and the victim spent a week in jail on his “judgment call" and was released when “wiser heads prevailed” and charges were dropped. (Just common sense))