Excellent article. Thanks for posting. It’ll be interesting to read the 9th circuit’s rationale when they address Benito’s 100 page opinion, or will they ignore it like Bonta.
Bookmarked.
Remember how this travesty of a gun law got passed in California.
Politicians wrote an As-s-s-ault weapons ban so broad it included lever action rifles. When opposed, the lever action part was removed and the bill shelved.
Then the state released Pat Purdy from a mental institution, allowed him to buy guns, passing all the waiting periods and lying on federal forms.
Then he shot up the Stockton School yard killing several students and himself.
The shelved bill was pulled out and passed so fast there was no time to mount opposition to it.
Hard to believe this is the same state where the citizens rejected a handgun registration and ban scheme back in 1982 (Prop 15) which was “guaranteed to pass.”
I fully expect the 9th to overturn this on appeal. One would hope that the supreme court would hear it after that, but, they seem to be terrified of actually deciding a case that really elaborates on the 2nd Amendment.
One thing I noticed about this opinion is that despite eviscerating many canards that are common surrounding the 2nd Amendment, the judge STILL incorrectly interprets the Miller opinion. As I have said here many, many times, the key bit of U.S. v Miller is the following:
=snip=
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.
=end snip=
What this means is that the court was not told that sawed-off shotguns were used extensively in trench warfare during WWI. Had that court been informed of this, the decision likely would have gone the other direction. It would also have made for a very easy challenge of the rest of the statute.