Posted on 06/05/2021 2:49:24 PM PDT by aimhigh
California officials are vowing to fight back after a federal judge overturned the state’s 30-year-old ban on assault weapons. In ruling the ban unconstitutional, U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez compared the AR-15 semiautomatic rifle to a Swiss Army knife, calling it “good for both home and battle.”
Benitez, of the Southern District of California, issued a permanent injunction against the law’s enforcement but stayed it for 30 days to give the state a chance to appeal. California is one of seven states, plus Washington, D.C, that ban assault weapons, according to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
(Excerpt) Read more at ktla.com ...
Fight back?! With an assault weapon?!
9th will reverse, and off to the SCOTUS we go...who knows where the merry go round stops.
PLEASE. appeal it to SCOTUS so we can rid the entire country of them!!
Perhaps not as the 9th has been uncharacteristically (for them) supportive when it come to 2nd amendment rights.
See my tag line.
Gee, the state of CA might allow them to own a semi auto rifle? That is so generous of them to consider!
The judge did a good job with simple wording. It won’t be overturned.
Should read: “Kalifornia’s communist democrat officials” vow to fight back after federal judge overturns state’s 3-decade old assault weapons ban
Well, it’s iffy with Roberts and the unproven new judges.
bookmark
It’s already stayed 30 days, and that stay will be extended indefinitely once the state appeals. It will get kicked around for about 2 years, then the 9th will reverse Judge Benitez. Another year or 2 later, we will see if SCOTUS will hear it, or if another case makes it moot. This has been the way of the 9th Circus for decades.
Once again - when the Dems don’t get their way they double down and cheat and steal and make more laws.
They don’t care about the USA or the law.
They want POWER and now have their own private army to wield it. That’s why they want the police defunded.
V Good Point - not a lot of extraneous words in the ruling limits the basis for appeal.
The ban was blatantly unconstitutional, what grounds will the state use to argue their case? They don’t have a legal leg to stand on.
In addition, it points out that the state's "expert" witnesses cannot substantiate or reproduce the factual assertions they made, such as that defensive gun use requires on average only 2.2 rounds. It also points out that other claims, such as that AW are somehow more dangerous, are absurd given that most fire rounds far less damaging than hunting rifles and that the Mini-14 (which is allowed) fires exactly the same 5.56mm round as most AR-15s and also has a detachable magazine.
It's worth reading simply for the judge's sense of humor. For example he quotes the Oakland chief of police saying that he prefers victims not to shoot back because he wants good witnesses. To which the judge replies that the chief apparently did not realize that a dead witness is not a good witness.
The decision might stand because it is remarkably thorough about both the law and the facts.
funniest thing is, everyone we know in California has several such items ready to use if ever necessary
so if there has been a “several decades old” “ban” in California, it sure has had very little impact
The point about hunting rifles being more deadly than a 5.56.
The US Supreme Court settled this issue in 2016...by a 9-0 vote.
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.