Federal Judge: California’s Ban on ‘Assault Weapons’ Is Unconstitutional

in 2nd Amendment – R2KBA, Current Events, This Week
Springfield SAINT Victor with LAW Tactical Folder Reviewed! 
California’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” is unconstitutional says Judge Roger T. Benitez.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

California’s Semi-Auto Ban Overturned

In a landmark ruling, a U.S. District Court judge declared the longstanding California ban on “assault weapons” unconstitutional, sparking widespread reactions.

A Triumph for Second Amendment Foundation (SAF)

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), along with partners like San Diego County Gun Owners Political Action Committee and California Gun Rights Foundation, celebrated their victory in the case known as Miller v. Bonta.

James Miller, one of the private citizens involved, stands as a namesake for the case.

Leading attorneys George M. Lee of Seiler Epstein, LLP and John W. Dillon of the Dillon Law Group, APC represent them.

Judge Benitez Takes a Firm Stand

Judge Roger T. Benitez, in his extensive 79-page decision, made a striking comparison, equating the banning of specific guns to the prohibition of books or religious places.

He emphasized that constitutional rights can’t be selectively applied, rejecting the state’s recycled justification for the ban.

Judge Benitez wrote:

Falling back on an old, recycled justification, the State says that its ban should stand because a person can have as many other rifles, shotguns, and pistols as one wants…Heller demolished that argument. The same argument – that a handgun ban might be justified because government-approved alternatives are available – was rejected in Heller and it is rejected here. Heller said quite clearly that it is no constitutional answer for government to say that it is permissible to ban some guns so long as other guns are allowed. This is not the way American Constitutional rights work. It is not permissible for a state to ban some books simply because there are other books to read, or to close synagogues because churches and mosques are open. In their normal configurations, the so-called “assault weapons” banned in California are modern firearms commonly-owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes across the nation. Under Heller, McDonald, Caetano, and Bruen, they may not be banned.

SAF’s Rejoicing and Forward Look

Adam Kraut, SAF’s Executive Director, voiced his contentment, stating that the foundation has always viewed California’s ban as unconstitutional.

He expressed optimism in the light of the recent ruling, confident that their stance was legally and morally right.

Potential Ripple Effects in Washington

Given the recent ruling, SAF anticipates similar repercussions in Washington.

Both states come under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court. SAF’s founder, Alan M. Gottlieb, highlighted the broader implications: if the ban is unconstitutional in California, it’s equally so in Washington.

The Road Ahead: Supreme Court in View?

Drawing attention to the broader horizon, Gottlieb indicated SAF’s readiness for a potential Supreme Court face-off, emphasizing their commitment to the cause.

He expressed confidence in prevailing should the matter escalate to the nation’s highest court.

Judge Benitez Speaks on Self-Defense

In his detailed ruling, Benitez accentuated the pivotal role of guns in self-defense.

He cited various surveys underscoring the high frequency of defensive gun uses in the country, challenging the narrative that portrays these weapons as primarily offensive.

Judge Benitez wrote:

While criminals already have these modern semiautomatics, the State prohibits its citizens from buying and possessing the same guns for self-defense. At the same time these firearms are commonly possessed by law-abiding gun owners elsewhere across the country. Guns for self-defense are needed a lot because crime happens a lot. A recent large-scale survey estimates that guns are needed defensively approximately 1,670,000 times a year. Another report, originally commissioned and long cited by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that there are between 500,000 and 3,000,000 defensive gun uses in the United States each year.

A Paradigm Shift in Gun Rights Discussion

Adam Kraut opined that Judge Benitez’s decision represents a turning point, sending a clear message to gun prohibitionists.

“Judge Benitez’ ruling is a stinging rebuff to the gun prohibition movement,” said Kraut. “His detailed discussion of the history of firearms regulation, along with his dismantling of the state’s arguments and assertions of its experts sends a signal that the days when gun banners could simply attack the Second Amendment without challenge are finished. We will take this challenge to the Supreme Court if necessary, as part of our commitment to restore firearms freedom, one lawsuit a time.”

The ruling, laden with historical and legal discussions, indicates a shifting tide in the gun rights conversation.

SAF reaffirmed its commitment, ready to challenge and restore firearms freedom, one lawsuit at a time.

*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! All Local Sales are FREE! ***

https://gunsamerica.com/listings/search

About the author: Larry Z Welcome to “Inside GunsAmerica: Where Values Meet Excellence”, an exclusive deep dive into one of the leading online platforms dedicated to the promotion and protection of the Second Amendment.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • Lewis October 28, 2023, 12:40 am

    God bless St. Benitez! Now it is time to go after the Ca gun roster. Let the State test and prove a handgun, sold all across the country is not “safe”….

    • W November 13, 2023, 11:36 am

      But nothings changed… that was just a start of a long uphill Battle. Get a clue 😂

  • Stan d. Upnow October 27, 2023, 12:13 pm

    Oooo, the anti-2nd A. Progressive-Socialists in Commiefornia are Not going to like this decision!

  • kbc kurt October 25, 2023, 10:20 am

    Since all illegal border insurgents will receive a work permit drivers license and a social security card, (its already happening) they will be able to purchase firearms legally as the BATFE will not have a criminal back round NICS to stop it. So all of those that are on watch lists can now be armed. Did anyone in the congress and senate see the movie 1984 Red Dawn?

    • Stan d. Upnow October 27, 2023, 12:17 pm

      You have to be a U.S. citizen or permanent resident to purchase firearms. Not sure if those documents you cite qualify them, or are even legally issued.

      • Kbc kurt October 27, 2023, 1:17 pm

        Legal depends state to state. I was in Washington State, a mail in only ballot, is mailed to all with a drivers license address. I was in a Georgia Motor vehicle registration line with 2 persons ahead of Me, neither spoke any English, a translator was called over to them and asked to present thier immigration document and they both presented a ew Georgia driver’s license and a new soc sec card. I understand a bit of thirr language and thier conversation slightly disturIt’s amazing. amazing.

  • Mario Reyes October 24, 2023, 12:07 am

    “Judge Roger T. Benitez, in his extensive 79-page decision, made a striking comparison, equating the banning of specific guns to the prohibition of books or religious places.”
    Well there are some reading this right now who are supporting the banning of books and claiming the US is a (white Jesus) “Christian” nation.
    The latter is not supported in the Constitution in any way, shape, or form.

    • Kane October 24, 2023, 8:07 pm

      You mean the Amazon book banning that the lefties supported (ie MS King et cetera) or the American Free Press that were refused as library donations or the Francis Parkman banned books. The lefties no longer allow the Communist sympathizer Ernest Hemingway to be part of the cirriculum at his old HS OPRF because of his “toxic masculinity.” I remember reading your sniveling accounts of racial oppression and I know you are a grand idiot.

      Still here’s a challenge, you put together a list of books banned by the right (list title and organization in which the ban occurred) that are NOT banned because of graphic sexual content and I will easily match the same type of books by the left. And the loser (which will be you) will be banned from this MB forever.

      We can start right here, yes?

    • Stan d. Upnow October 27, 2023, 12:28 pm

      Those books that “some reading this right now” support banning are those outrageous publications pushed by the twisto pervert LBG-Whatevers in our public school libraries & classrooms on kiddies as young as 5! And, the Founders and early colonists were mostly Christian folks. The Constitution was written to ensure there would be no religious persecution, which many fled to this land to escape. Get a clue before posting stupid comments!

  • SteveC October 23, 2023, 6:17 pm

    So F’n misleading from a publucation that ibviously doesn’t have itself together! YOU’RE just as pathetic as the left! Care to give dates on any of this, as the case goes back to 2019??!! If you’re not going to represent trasparently and truthfully, stop pretending to do so at all!! What a joke of journalism this is!!!

    • Kane October 24, 2023, 8:25 pm

      Hard to follow this one, this is Judge Benitez’s second ruling against the ban. So what about 2019? Benitez is NOT creating the legal challenges to extend the play clock.

  • Walleye October 23, 2023, 1:26 pm

    And now what?
    Does anybody think the state of Californification will simply take this lying down?
    Even if this case gets appealed all the way up to SCOTUS and Miller wins… Who’s going to enforce it?
    Biden? Garland?
    We have a constitutional crisis in the country, and we pro 2A voters need to help elect every local DA & PA we can.

  • W October 23, 2023, 11:53 am

    It would be nice if the date of the ruling would have been mentioned even once in the article.

  • paul I'll call you what I want/1st Amendment October 23, 2023, 11:20 am

    and the commie left don’t believe in the constitution so this means nothing to them!

  • Michael J October 23, 2023, 9:24 am

    Dems think they can legislate evil, but in reality they only punish the law abiding because of it.

Send this to a friend