CA-Fed. District Court judge rules California's "assault weapon" ban unconstitutional

[Anti Federalist]

I'll take good news where I can find it.


Judge Rules California’s ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Unconstitutional

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...onstitutional/

AWR Hawkins 4 Jun 2021

California’s “assault weapons” ban was ruled unconstitutional Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

The case, Miller v. Bonta, argued California’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” violated the Second Amendment.

Judge Roger T. Benitez, appointed by President George W. Bush, agreed with the plaintiff’s contention, ruling:

The Second Amendment “elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.” Heller, 554 U.S., at 635. The Supreme Court clearly holds that the Second Amendment protects guns commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. At the same time, “the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms . . . that ‘have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.’”

He added:

And although the Supreme Court cautioned that the Second Amendment does not guarantee a right to keep and carry “any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose,” Heller, 554 U.S., at 626, lower courts have often cited this proviso about extreme cases to justify gun laws in average contexts. There is no evidence that the Supreme Court intended that language to be a license to avoid its common sense holding in average contexts.

Benitez also noted:

Heller took the already expansive zone of protection for weapons that could be used by the militia and focused on the core use of firearms for self-defense. “The [Heller] Court determined that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right held by the people, and not limited by the prefatory clause — ‘a well regulated Militia’ — only to ‘the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with militia service.’

Benitez also zeroed in on the phrase “assault weapons,” noting, “As an aside, the ‘assault weapon’ epithet is a bit of a misnomer. These prohibited guns, like all guns, are dangerous weapons. However, these prohibited guns, like all guns, can be used for ill or for good. They could just as well be called ‘home defense rifles’ or ‘anti-crime guns.’”

Benitez ruled against the “assault weapons” ban, finding it unconstitutional but issuing a 30-day stay on his injunction in order to give California Attorney General Rob Bonta a timeframe in which to appeal the ruling.

After 30 days, the following ruling is in effect:

Defendant Attorney General Rob Bonta, and his officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with him, and those duly sworn state peace officers and federal law enforcement officers who gain knowledge of this injunction order or know of the existence of this injunction order, are enjoined from implementing or enforcing the California Penal Code §§ 30515(a)(1) through (8) (defining an “assault weapon” by prohibited features), 30800 (deeming those “assault weapons” a public nuisance), 30915 (regulating those “assault weapons” obtained by bequest or inheritance), 30925 (restricting importation of those “assault weapons” by new residents), 30945 (restricting use of those registered “assault weapons”), and 30950 (prohibiting possession of those “assault weapons” by minors) and the penalty provisions §§ 30600, 30605 and 30800 as applied to “assault weapons” defined in Code §§ 30515(a)(1) through (8).

Miller’s case was supported by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC).

Alan Gottlieb, SAF founder and executive vice president, commented on Benitez’s ruling, saying, “It is clear that the judge did his homework on this ruling, and we are delighted with the outcome.”

The case is Miller v. Bonta, No. 19-cv-1537 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

[oyarde]

I cant think of any restrictive weapon laws that are not UnConstitutional . In fact they are UnAmerican and I have no real problem if Danke rounds up the current reps that support them and sends them to Gitmo for re education . They can re apply for citizenship later through my UnAmerican activities committee headed by crazy man Ron Zeplin .

[Pauls' Revere]

I cant think of any restrictive weapon laws that are not UnConstitutional . In fact they are UnAmerican and I have no real problem if Danke rounds up the current reps that support them and sends them to Gitmo for re education . They can re apply for citizenship later through my UnAmerican activities committee headed by crazy man Ron Zeplin .

LOL +rep

[Pauls' Revere]

Good timing Gavin.

https://news.yahoo.com/california-go...124338243.html

During a vaccine lottery event Friday, Democratic California governor Gavin Newsom reneged on his promise to lift the state’s emergency declaration after June 15, allowing him to retain the powers to mandate sweeping COVID restrictions.

[Anti Globalist]

Very rare to see some kind of good news coming out of California.

[libertasbella]

I cant think of any restrictive weapon laws that are not UnConstitutional . In fact they are UnAmerican and I have no real problem if Danke rounds up the current reps that support them and sends them to Gitmo for re education . They can re apply for citizenship later through my UnAmerican activities committee headed by crazy man Ron Zeplin .

They should only be allowed to reapply for citizenship after they've served four years in the Armed Forces. Active combat, not desk jobs.

[Anti Federalist]

Ninth Circuit Blocks District Court Ruling Against CA ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...t-weapons-ban/

AWR Hawkins 22 Jun 2021

On Monday the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit temporarily blocked a district court ruling that would have prohibited the enforcement of California’s “assault weapons” ban.

On June 4, 2021, Breitbart News reported that Judge Roger T. Benitez ruled against the ban.

In so doing, Benitez noted:

The Second Amendment elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.’ Heller, 554 U.S., at 635. The Supreme Court clearly holds that the Second Amendment protects guns commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.

He added:

And although the Supreme Court cautioned that the Second Amendment does not guarantee a right to keep and carry “any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose,” Heller, 554 U.S., at 626, lower courts have often cited this proviso about extreme cases to justify gun laws in average contexts. There is no evidence that the Supreme Court intended that language to be a license to avoid its common sense holding in average contexts.

Benitez gave California Attorney General Rob Bonta a 30-day time frame in which to appeal the District Court ruling but noted that after 30 days an injunction against enforcing the ban would be in place.
Bonta appealed the ruling and on June 21, 2021, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit blocked Benitez’s injunction pending the result of Bonta’s appeal. The three judges are Clinton-appointee Barry G. Silverman, Obama-appointee Jacqueline Nguyen, and Trump-appointee Ryan D. Nelson.

The Ninth Circuit ruled: “The district court’s June 4, 2021 order and judgment are stayed pending resolution of Rupp v. Bonta. The stay shall remain in effect until further order of this court.”

The Firearm Policy Coalition responded to the Ninth Circuit’s ruling:

The first duty of our federal courts is to uphold the Constitution and protect the People’s fundamental rights enshrined therein. But today, as it has too many times before, the fanatically anti-Second Amendment Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals elected to disregard that fundamental duty, ignore the text and public meaning of our Constitution, and fail the very People they swore an oath to serve.

If this case were about a similarly broad abortion ban, restrictive immigration policy, or reduction of voting rights, just to name a few examples, there is no question that the Ninth Circuit’s decision here would have gone the other way. Just as Justice Clarence Thomas accurately explained in his 2018 dissent from denial of certiorari in Silvester v. Becerra—the first-ever federal Second Amendment trial victory that the Ninth Circuit outrageously reversed based on its own (anti-rights) “common sense” rather than the Constitution and Supreme Court’s D.C. v. Heller decision—“the right to keep and bear arms is apparently [the Supreme] Court’s constitutional orphan. And the lower courts seem to have gotten the message.”

The case is Miller v. Bonta, No. 21-55608 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and previously No. 3:19-cv-01537 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.