Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge Benitez Sets Time Limits for Briefs on California Assault Weapon Ban
AmmoLand ^ | September 9, 2022 | Dean Weingarten

Posted on 09/17/2022 5:31:30 AM PDT by marktwain

On August 15, 2019, the San Diego Gun Owners Political Action Committee, James Miller, and others filed a lawsuit against then California Attorney General Beccera, challenging the constitutionality of the California “assault weapon” ban.  As the case evolved, it became known as Miller v Bona.

Here is a summation from the complaint filed on August 15, 2019:

1. This is a facial and as applied constitutional challenge to California Penal Code §§ 30515(a)(2) and 30515(a)(5), California Code of Regulations § 5471, subdivs. (b), (n), and (p), and Defendants policies, practices, customs, and enforcement of said law, which define and prohibit certain firearms as “assault weapons” solely because they feature “large-capacity” magazines (capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition) as defined by Pen. Code § 16740 and regulated under the now-enjoined Penal Code § 32310. Duncan v. Becerra,Case No. 3:17-cv-1017-BEN-JLB (ECF No. 87). Subdivisions (a)(2) and (a)(5) of Penal Code § 30515 violate the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution by prohibiting law-abiding citizens, including these individual plaintiffs, from obtaining, acquiring, possessing, manufacturing or transferring firearms in common use for lawful purposes such as self-defense inside and outside the home,competition, sport, and hunting.

The state of California fought the lawsuit with all the tools at its disposal. Numerous motions were filed. The historical evidence and arguments presented by both sides were extensive. There were delays because of Covid 19.  In the end, Judge Benitez, citing the 1939 Miller case, Heller and McDonald, as well as Caetano, decided in favor the plaintiffs.

Judge Benitez ruled AR15-type rifles and others defined as “assault weapons” were both common and well suited for militia use and use by individuals for defense of self and others, as well as for other legal purposes. Therefore, the California ban was unconstitutional.

(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: 2a; banglist; benitez; california; ninthcircuit
The Ninth Circuit sends it back to Judge Rodger Benitez.

Hard to see how he rules differently than he already did.

The purpose of the Ninth is probably to delay, delay, delay.

1 posted on 09/17/2022 5:31:30 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Of course its unconstitutional. The communists do not honor the Constitution, Freedom, nor the Republic.


2 posted on 09/17/2022 5:38:11 AM PDT by FlyingEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Bury them deep. We’re going to need them someday soon.


3 posted on 09/17/2022 5:47:44 AM PDT by HighSierra5 (The only way you know a commie is lying is when they open their pieholes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HighSierra5
If it is time to bury them, it is time to use them.

Burying them is a bad idea.

4 posted on 09/17/2022 5:49:42 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

This was about the time they lifted the ban on ‘Hi-Cap’ mags, temporarily.
Freedom Week’ for 20 rd. MAGAZINE’S was like Christmas for SoCal Plinkers!


5 posted on 09/17/2022 7:01:55 AM PDT by Big Red Badger (We Are JONAH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlyingEagle

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. What’s so hard about this? The constitution was written so farmers with limited education could understand. All the states in the union must follow the law of the land.

QED


6 posted on 09/17/2022 7:22:48 AM PDT by DownInFlames (P)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Big Red Badger

I remember the boxes Pro-Mag shipped their 50 rd magazines in to California during this time. It looked like a fist giving the middle finger to California.


7 posted on 09/17/2022 8:03:12 AM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar ( FR is on GAB! https://gab.com/groups/67851)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

8 posted on 09/17/2022 8:08:25 AM PDT by gundog ( It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar

It was Great while it lasted fortunately I’ve escaped to a Free state and 30 rd. Glock magazines Are Everywhere!


9 posted on 09/17/2022 6:24:30 PM PDT by Big Red Badger (We Are JONAH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: marktwain; mylife; Joe Brower; MaxMax; Randy Larsen; waterhill; Envisioning; AZ .44 MAG; umgud; ...

RKBA Ping List


This Ping List is for all things pertaining to infringes upon or victories for the 2nd Amendment.

FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.

More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.

10 posted on 09/17/2022 7:24:13 PM PDT by PROCON (Sic Semper Tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
In the end, Judge Benitez, citing the 1939 Miller case,...

Actually, wow.

11 posted on 09/17/2022 10:08:20 PM PDT by MileHi ((Liberalism is an ideology of parasites, hypocrites, grievance mongers, victims, and control freaks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Judge Benitez ruled AR15-type rifles and others defined as “assault weapons” were both common and well suited for militia use and use by individuals for defense of self and others, as well as for other legal purposes.

So a judge can decide what weapon is suitable for particular uses? Try this on for size: shall not infringe mean zero laws.

12 posted on 09/18/2022 9:18:46 AM PDT by ConservativeInPA ( Scratch a leftist and you'll find a fascist )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

The Second Amendment is a unique pre-existing right. The text of the Amendment suggests such. As Heller noted, “[w]e look to [the history] because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right [when it says the right] “shall not be infringed.” The Second Amendment has long been recognized by the Supreme Court as a pre-existing right.


13 posted on 09/18/2022 11:59:38 AM PDT by smokingfrog ( sleep with one eye open (<o> --- )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson