California assault weapon ban. Ninth Circuit Upholds Constitution, FINALLY!

[BlindedByScience]

Just made a small donation to FPC. A good step in the right direction.

 

[GWS]

Brilliant decision!!
I want Benitez on the Supreme Court.
Bravo!!!

 

[Ura-Ki]

Brilliant decision!!
I want Benitez on the Supreme Court.
Bravo!!!

Replace RINO Roberts!

 

[Flopsweat]

This should hold about until the 9th Circuit gets hold of it. I love what Judge Benitez had to say about it though.

BREAKING: Federal Judge Overturns California's AR15 Ban | The Gateway Pundit | by Brock Simmons

If you can believe it, a Federal judge in California has overturned the state’s onerous AR15 and “assault weapons” ban.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

 

[rdb241]

Judge overturns California’s ban on assault weapons

A federal judge has overturned California’s three-decade-old ban on assault weapons, ruling that it violates the constitutional right to bear arms.

www.aol.com

 

[rdb241]

BREAKING NEWS: FEDERAL JUDGE OVERTURNS CALIFORNIA'S THREE-DECADE LONG BAN ON "ASSAULT" WEAPONS, RULING IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL
By Kevin Ryan
A federal judge has overturned California's three-decade-old ban on so-called "assault weapons", ruling that it violates the constitutional right to bear arms.
U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez ruled that the ban deprives law-abiding Californians of weapons commonly allowed in most other states and by the U.S. Supreme Court.
"Under no level of heightened scrutiny can the law survive," Benitez said.
The 94-page ruling also said the weapons were overwhelmingly used for legal reasons.
"This is an average case about average guns used in average ways for average purposes," the judge said. "One is to be forgiven if one is persuaded by news media and others that the nation is awash with murderous AR-15 assault rifles. The facts, however, do not support this hyperbole, and facts matter: In California, murder by knife occurs seven times more often than murder by rifle."
Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) immediately condemned the decision, calling it "a direct threat to public safety and the lives of innocent Californians".
"We're not backing down from this fight, and we'll continue pushing for common sense gun laws that will save lives."
California's firearms laws are among the strictest in the nation.
The lawsuit was filed in August 2019 on behalf of gun owners. It says that California is "one of only a small handful states to ban many of the most popular semiautomatic firearms in the nation because they possess one or more common characteristics, such as pistol grips and threaded barrels" along with detachable ammunition magazines.
Judge Benitez issued a permanent injunction against enforcement of the assault weapon ban, though he stayed it for 30 days to give state Attorney General Rob Bonta time to appeal.
SOURCES: https://apnews.com/.../california-gun-politics-government...

https://www.sfchronicle.com/.../Federal-judge-overturns...

 

[bbbass]

Being from Havana, Judge Benitez would know the danger of tyrannical govt.

Good stuff:

You might not know it, but this case is about what should be a muscular constitutional right and whether a state can force a gun policy choice that impinges on that right with a 30-year-old failed experiment. It should be an easy question and answer. Government is not free to impose its own new policy choices on American citizens where Constitutional rights are concerned. As Heller explains, the Second Amendment takes certain policy choices and removes them beyond the realm of permissible state action. California may certainly conceive of a policy that a modern rifle is dangerous in the hands of a criminal, and that therefore it is good public policy to keep modern rifles out of the hands of every citizen. The Second Amendment stands as a shield from government imposition of that policy.

There is only one policy enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Guns and ammunition in the hands of criminals, tyrants and terrorists are dangerous; guns in the hands of law-abiding responsible citizens are better. To give full life to the core right of self-defense, every law-abiding responsible individual citizen has a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear firearms commonly owned and kept for lawful purposes.

Let's hope the 9th Circus does the same as it did with the mag ban and uphold this judge's ruling!!!

 

[MichaelH]

A second source, because I strongly believe we all need to read more:

U.S. Judge Overturns California's Ban On Assault Weapons https://www.npr.org/1003545815

 

[bbbass]

Previous thread started at 2:something am.

Mods please merge.

 

[arentol72]

Most CA gun laws (actually most gun laws period) are (meaning "are supposed to be") based on a "public policy" exception to the second amendment, because "public policy" is basically the only way to trump the 2nd. Most of these CA laws should be trivially easy to remove because of the "small steps" method by which they are enacted. If there is a public policy reason to disallow certain firearms then enacting it should be all or nothing, and should include all firearms with the same capability, regardless of differences in appearance. The very fact they were done in small steps speaks to the lack of a valid public policy basis.

For instance, the pistol roster law makes it clear that there is 100% no public policy basis for the law because it makes some firearms illegal when they are 99% the same as a prior generation that is legal, with the 1% change being an added SAFETY feature. The instant one such firearm was made illegal the public policy basis for the law was entirely eroded and the law should be wiped out with even the most basic challenge.

Another example is the assault weapons law that made most AR's illegal while leaving a Ruger Mini-14 that has the EXACT same functionality and lethality legal. The fact it didn't apply to firearms that were functionally no different immediately demonstrated it wasn't based on public policy and it should be easily defeated in any reasonable court on that basis.

Of course some try to argue that the 2nd doesn't apply to states, or that the 2nd only applies to the National Guard and such. But the first is ridiculous on the face of it since the 14th amendment either causes all of the Bill of Rights to apply across all states, or none of it to apply anywhere. Can't have that both ways. The second is a bit more open to debate (currently), but nobody has significantly tested it in court, and nobody seems to want to go there on the anti-gun side because they know that if they lose that argument they are in trouble. They want well stacked courts all the way up before they come close to that debate.

 

[barnabus1999]

Federal Judge Overturns California's Ban on 'Assault-Style' Weapons

A federal judge overturned California's 32-year-old ban on so-called assault-style weapons on Friday, describing it as a "failed experiment" and prompting scathing criticism from the state's governor and attorney general.

www.newsmax.com

 

[Flymph]

I'd be surprised if it wasn't overturned by the AG by the end of next week. Benitez has been doing this somewhat regularly over the past few years and I don't believe any significant change has come of it. Aside from perhaps week long the magazine rush in the state.

 

[slimmer13]

Benitez isn't on the 9th. He's a district judge. It will next go to the 9th.

I think he's just getting the ball rolling (like mags) to get this to the SCOTUS. It will take years.

I could be mistaken, but I thought there were AWBs from other states that meet the criteria for the SCOTUS to take up at any time, but they haven't.

 

[Mikej]

I'd be surprised if it wasn't overturned by the AG by the end of next week. Benito has been doing this somewhat regularly over the past few years and I don't believe any significant change has come of it. Aside from perhaps week long the magazine rush in the state.

?

Gavin Newsom recall, Governor of California (2019-2021)

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

Organizers of a campaign to recall Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) turned in 1,719,943 valid signatures, exceeding the 1,495,709 required to trigger a recall election. Organizers turned in more than 2.1 million signatures by the March 17 filing deadline.[

 

[Longwalkhome]

?

Gavin Newsom recall, Governor of California (2019-2021)

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

Organizers of a campaign to recall Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) turned in 1,719,943 valid signatures, exceeding the 1,495,709 required to trigger a recall election. Organizers turned in more than 2.1 million signatures by the March 17 filing deadline.[

When kali made a law you had to do a bc to buy ammo I knew the end was near for Newsome, folks want to protect themselves as kali released 63,000 fellons because jails were crowded. Crime in kali will go through the roof so it makes sense the elite will allow themselves AR 15s by law.

 

[Mikej]

When kali made a law you had to do a bc to buy ammo I knew the end was near for Newsome, folks want to protect themselves as kali released 63,000 fellons because jails were crowded. Crime in kali will go through the roof so it makes sense the elite will allow themselves AR 15s by law.

What I was hinting at by bringing up the article was that the states attorney general answers to the gov'nor. Would newsome tell the AG to let it lay to, maybe, save his butt? Just a thought that crossed my mind.

 

[Flymph]

What was I hinting at by bringing up the article was that the states attorney general answers to the gov'nor. Would newsome tell the AG to let it lay to, maybe, save his butt? Just a thought that crossed my mind.

I'm pickin' up what you're putting down! Hopefully that is the case, then the guy gets recalled anyway!

 

[Mikej]

I'm pickin' up what you're putting down! Hopefully that is the case, then the guy gets recalled anyway!

And tarred, and feathered, and ran out on a rail!

 

[fishpoem]

Like demented beavers, our Marxist legislators here in Oregon are chewing away at IIA. Their Leftist brethren in California, however, just got slammed to the mat. U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez released a ruling late Friday indicating that California's three-decade ban on assault weapons violates the Second Amendment's right to bear arms.

U.S. federal judge overturns California's ban on assault weapons

A U.S. federal judge overturned California's 32-year-old ban on assault weapons on Friday, describing it as a "failed experiment" and prompting scathing criticism from the state's governor and attorney general.

www.reuters.com

You can read the judge's ruling here: https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/Decision -- Miller 20210604.pdf A bit long at 94 pages, but even a skip read through it is fascinating. Finally, a smart judge with a genuine understanding of the Constitution. For me, a perfect antidote to the arbitrary, emotion-driven anti-gun drivel from "liberal" activist judges.

For additional background reading, this is helpful: The Complete History of the AR-15 Rifle.

The Complete History of the AR-15 Rifle | Small Wars Journal

The history of this iconic American weapon, from its inception in 1959 to the present day.

smallwarsjournal.com

Biden simply follows the orders of wealthy anti-gun activists like Bloomberg. EVERY hunter, gun owner, or shooting enthusiast HAS to become informed and active. Otherwise, the freedoms we've enjoyed in our lifetimes will soon vanish. Poof! Gone forever. Marxist Democrats and their Antifa foot soldiers are on the march.

 

[Flopsweat]

Of course some try to argue that the 2nd doesn't apply to states, or that the 2nd only applies to the National Guard and such.

McDonald v. City of Chicago | Summary, Decision, History, & Facts

McDonald v. City of Chicago, case in which on June 28, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (5–4) that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,’ applies to state and local governments as well as to the federal government.

www.britannica.com

District of Columbia v. Heller | Summary, Ruling, & Facts

District of Columbia v. Heller, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 2008, held (5–4) that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms independent of service in a state militia and to use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense...

www.britannica.com

Nice post by the way! This is the first I remember reading a post of yours. Welcome to NWFA!