Posted on 06/04/2021 7:55:26 PM PDT by Auntie Mame
SAN DIEGO, CA (June 4, 2021) — Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that Judge Roger T. Benitez of the Southern District of California has issued an opinion in Miller v. Bonta (previously Miller v. Becerra), holding that California’s tyrannical ban on so-called “assault weapons” is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The opinion, along with other filings in this case, can be viewed at AssaultWeaponLawsuit.com.
In 2019, FPC developed and filed Miller v. Becerra, a federal Second Amendment challenge to California’s Assault Weapons Control Act (AWCA) ban on common semiautomatic arms with certain characteristics, including those with ammunition magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds. Throughout the lawsuit, FPC argued that the State’s ban prohibits arms that are constitutionally protected, no more lethal than other certain arms that are not banned, and commonly possessed and used for lawful purposes in the vast majority of the United States.
In the opinion, the Court ruled that many categories of firearms California bans as so-called “assault weapons” are protected by the Second Amendment, and that “[t]he Second Amendment stands as a shield from government imposition of that policy.” It went on to order an injunction against “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,” preventing them “from implementing or enforcing” the following:
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”) ; §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).
“In his order today, Judge Benitez held what millions of Americans already know to be true: Bans on so-called ‘assault weapons’ are unconstitutional and cannot stand,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “This historic victory for individual liberty is just the beginning, and FPC will continue to aggressively challenge these laws throughout the United States. We look forward to continuing this challenge at the Ninth Circuit and, should it be necessary, the Supreme Court.”
“We are delighted with Judge Benitez’s careful consideration of the law and facts in this case,” commented Adam Kraut, FPC’s Senior Director of Legal Operations. “The State’s ban on these common semi-automatic firearms with common characteristics flies in the face of the Constitution, Supreme Court precedent, and the natural right to keep and bear arms.”
“At trial, we presented dispositive evidence that the term ‘assault weapon’ has always been an arbitrary label used by anti-gun governments to ban constitutionally protected firearms,” explained FPC attorney George Lee. “In the end, the State’s rationale for banning these firearms simply could not hold up. This win is a watershed moment for civil rights, and will restore liberty to countless Californians that have been subjected to gross tyranny for years.”
“While this victory is most certainly a valuable one, it’s also important to understand how impactful this decision will be in restoring Second Amendment rights not only in California, but across the entire country,” noted FPC Attorney John Dillon. “This landmark trial win points the way to victory everywhere these unconstitutional bans exist.”
“We are pleased that the district court engaged in the detailed and thoughtful analysis required when a fundamental constitutional right is at stake,” explained FPC appellate counsel Erik Jaffe. “Unlike some appellate decisions in this area, Judge Benitez held the government to its burdens of proof, recognized the high hurdles the government must overcome when burdening the right to keep and bear arms, and gave the Second Amendment the weight and respect it deserves. Such a standard was rightfully unable to be met by such a broad and oppressive law, leading to a huge victory for the People, their right to keep and bear arms, and FPC. We now must urge the Court of Appeals to give the same respect to that express constitutional right, rather than engage in the ad hoc balancing and functionally zero weighting of a fundamental right that is too often the norm in Second Amendment cases.”
https://pdfhost.io/v/bV2sjdRcQ_DECISION.pdf?fbclid=IwAR00on2CNi2NPdeEyaf2y7WmmK2OcekqnGWImGXMAFn-Y0Pi-RYKA_r5ufs
Well, hallelujah!! A proper decision, and none too soon...
These idiotic arguments of the left ignore the fact that the very rights guaranteed by the constitution for armed citizens, are the very same sections that allow armed cops and soldiers.
Their idiotic arguments are analogous to back in the mid 1800s when the first repeater rifles came out, or the first successful cartridge revolvers came about, thes eknobs would argue regular citizens shouldn’t have them because they are too fast and effective, only government can have them. The people back then were not so ignorant about their rights as they are today, they would have tarred and feathered those people claiming that, literally.
I just hope this decision survives the 9th Circus.
Judge Benitez himself…
…issued a 30 day stay (bad for us)…
…on his (good for us) ruling…
…so the evil State of California…
…can appeal it up to a higher level court (9th Circus)…
…without giving us long suffering Californians even any limited time window…
…to exercise our Creator-given right to bear arms.
This is the same judge that ruled against California’s high capacity magazine ban and issued an injunction against the State for enforcing it. It lasted a week until the 9th Circus slapped him down.
Look for the 9th to reverse this decision in record time as well.
It will take a win per year to keep the grabbers from grabbing.
New York City residents had all kinds of weapons for 230 years before a NYC police dept was authorized by the NY State Legislature in 1845.
Alex I'll take repeating firearms for a $1000.00.
What was the first ever called "Machine Gun?"
What is known as the "Puckle Gun," a.k.a. (also known as the defense gun) was a primitive crew-served, manually-operated flintlock revolver patented in 1718 by James Puckle, (1667–1724) a British inventor, lawyer and writer. It was one of the earliest weapons to be referred to as a "machine gun", being called such in a 1722 shipping manifest.
Hint: check out the "AIR-RIFLE" issued by the 3rd POTUS {March 04, 1801 - March 04, 1809} Jefferson to Lewis & Clark.
Other multi-shot weapons:
"Hand Cannon(s)" from the 14 century.
"Hand Cannon(s)" that could shoot up to 10 rounds.
"Volley Gun(s)" some having up to 20 barrels. 16 century stuff.
Duck Foot Pistol.
Pepperbox Revolver. hundreds of years before the 2nd Amendment.
Belton Flintlock (Was offered for sale to the U.S. congress of 1776)
Yes, I’ll take the win. As everyone downthread (or is it upthread?) has said, it will be appealed. It’s just good to see a real judge uphold the Constitution. This is a good judge.
true enough
its also true that the most talked about arms w/r/t the 2a are firearms, so if someone is discussing it from the context of what they want to ban, we often also refer to the specific arms they are referencing
Am reading the verdict now. Comprehensive and devastating.
One bit missing on the “2.2 shots” section:
Most defensive uses only need 1 shot. Of 10 cases, if 9 need 1 shot, the “2.2 average shots needed” means the 10th incident needs 13 shots - condemning ~10% of defensive shooters to death under CA’s 10-round limit.
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.