Posted on 06/09/2021 7:52:07 AM PDT by Kaslin
When California legislators enacted the country's first ban on military-style rifles in 1989, they gave no weight to the fundamental right of armed self-defense guaranteed by the Second Amendment: a right the U.S. Supreme Court did not explicitly acknowledge until nearly two decades later. But as U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez observed in his ruling against California's "assault weapon" ban last Friday, it should now be clear that the outright prohibition of such firearms cannot pass constitutional muster.
California's Assault Weapons Control Act, which is similar to laws enforced by a handful of other states, originally applied to a list of more than 50 specific brands and models. In 1999, the law was amended to cover any semi-automatic, centerfire rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and has any of the following features: a pistol grip that "protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon," a forward pistol grip, a thumbhole stock, a folding or telescoping stock, a flash suppressor or a grenade/flare launcher.
The rifles prohibited by the AWCA are among the most popular firearms sold in the United States. Nearly 20 million have been manufactured or imported during the last three decades.
As far as Benitez is concerned, that should be the end of the matter. In the landmark 2008 case that overturned the District of Columbia's handgun ban, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects the right to own weapons "in common use" for "lawful purposes like self-defense" -- a test that the rifles covered by California's law clearly satisfy.
Although handguns are used to commit crimes far more often than "assault weapons," the Court rejected the notion that a blanket ban on an entire category of firearms could be justified by the danger they pose in the hands of criminals. It also rejected the idea that such a ban could pass muster because it allowed people to use other kinds of firearms for self-defense.
California nevertheless deployed both of those arguments in defense of the AWCA. Benitez, like the Supreme Court, was unpersuaded.
Benitez concluded that the AWCA cannot survive even under the "intermediate scrutiny" test that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which includes California, tends to apply in gun control cases. That test requires a "reasonable fit" between an "important government interest" (in this case, prevention of gun violence) and the means chosen to further that interest.
In terms of destructive power, a rifle with the features on California's list is indistinguishable from the same rifle without them. It fires the same ammunition at the same rate with the same muzzle velocity.
California argued that some of the prohibited features help "maintain accuracy in rapid-fire scenarios," making a rifle especially suitable for mass shootings. A video submitted as evidence in this case casts doubt on that claim, showing that an AR-15 without any of those features fired with "approximately the same speed and accuracy" as an AR-15 with all of them.
Assuming California has succeeded in making rifles less accurate, that is hardly an improvement. Accuracy is especially important when a law-abiding gun owner uses a rifle in self-defense, a scenario that Benitez illustrated with several real-life examples.
Similarly, California has arbitrarily banned the adjustable stock that makes it easier for someone of small stature to use a rifle, the pistol grip that "gives a homeowner a secure hold with one hand while the other hand holds a telephone or spare magazine" and the flash suppressor that "prevents the night-time home defender from being blinded by her own muzzle flash." Despite all these decrees, Benitez noted, the AWCA has not had an observable effect on the frequency of mass shootings involving "assault weapons," meaning "California's experiment has been a failure."
The impact of the federal "assault weapon" ban that expired in 2004 was similarly unimpressive. President Joe Biden nevertheless wants to try this experiment again. The question is whether the Supreme Court will let him.
How could it not be unconstitutional?
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Agreed.
I would have made the Title: "How California's 'Assault Weapon' Ban is Unconstitutional"
The constitution is nothing more than TP to democrats. They have an agenda to advance and the constitution is just in their way.
Because California is Unconstitutional they only have wing it rules and laws.
Don’t get too excited about this ruling just yet. BenÃtez is the same judge that ruled in 2017 that California’s full capacity magazine ban was unconstitutional, and gave Californians a one week stay from the law that allowed literally millions of previously-banned magazines into the state before being forced by the 9th Circuit to remove his stay while appeals run their course.
Here it is four years later, and that magazine ban case is still before the 9th Circuit, this time with an En Banc review of the ruling.
Judge Benitez must have learned his lesson, because this time he deferred his final injunction against the California assault weapon ban until all appeals have been exhausted.
If the state somehow decides not to appeal, then his permanent injunction will take effect 30 days from last Monday.
So there is still a years-long process that must work itself through before the ban can really be declared dead.
“...shall not be infringed.”
I had a history teacher in high school who was fond of saying, “There’s just no getting around it.”
Yep. Even John Roberts can’t get around that phrase.
good for that judge
“2nd restricts government”
Agreed
Good post.
Frustrating to have to keep going over this again and again. The Constitution limits the Goobermint, NOT THE PEOPLE.
the original article gets it all wrong, as usual, with foolish statements like this:
“the fundamental right of armed self-defense guaranteed by the Second Amendment:”
I lived in CA and owned a Semi Automatic version of the AK-47.
They passed an Unconstitutional Law and I was forced to Register the Rifle, putting my name on a list of potential Domestic Terrorists. Not doing so would have made me an Overnight Felon.
I ended up selling the AK to an out of State Buyer and made a tidy profit as a result which helped fund my next purchase, a “CA Legal” version of a Semi Automatic AR-15.
In order to be “legal” in CA, the Barrel end was not threaded, there was nowhere to mount a Bayonet and a “tool” was required to release the Magazine which could only hold ten rounds of ammunition.
An innovative solution to overcome the Magazine release “tool” requirement was called Bullet Button. It was a recessed button release that could only be pushed in using the tip of a Bullet or any other pointed implement, AKA “tool”. With practice, changing out the Magazine took about five seconds.
The Politicians in Sacramento were horrified about that and went to work. Sure enough, Rifles equipped woth a Bullet Button were reclassified Assault Weapons requiring Registration. Uh oh, I was an Overnight Felon once again.
This time around I ignored them and we eventually moved to a Free State. Since that time, my Arsenal has substantially increased in size.
I still have to fill out that dreaded 4473 Form when purchasing a new Firearm, but I know that if I falsify it I can always use the Hunter Biden did it defense in Court. Just kidding...
“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”.
Based on the language of the Second Amendment, Leftists love to say only the Militia has the Right to Bear Arms yet the specific Language says “the Right of the People”, it doesn’t say ‘the Right of the Militia’.
They also think that the term “well regulated” means Government controlled. Wrong again...
When some Leftist Bolshevik in a Black Robe decides to gut my God Given Constitutional Rights, he or she is no more that a Traitor to the Republic.
Remember Xiden saying no Constitutional Right is “absolute” a couple of Months ago? I do.
A DEMONCRAT Frigging Tyrant who should have been Impeached the moment that came out of his lying Pie Hole.
The Constitution is simply recognizing God given rights and restricting the government.
Leftists hate anything the restricts government.
Whatever they say or do can’t remove those God given rights, all they can do is violate the restrictions of the Constitution, which they have shown they have no problem with.
They always shriek that an AR-15 is a “weapon of war”. (Practically every gun starts out that way, but I digress...) If it’s a “weapon of war,” does that make almost every big-city police department an army?
Just bought myself an AR Pistol and a Bullpup Semi Auto Shotgun. Can’t wait to try them out.
Buying a new Firearm here in MS is the way to go. Because I have a Conceal Carry Permit (which isn’t needed being a Constitutional Carry State), I just fill out the 4473 Form and walk out with my purchase. No NICS check required.
In CA they treat you like a Criminal when you buy a Firearm.
Yep, that’s just too tough a concept for Leftists.
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.