BREAKING: Federal Judge Overturns California’s AR15 Ban

[qmcorps]

See link for easier read.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/202...nias-ar15-ban/

If you can believe it, a Federal judge in California has overturned the state’s onerous AR15 and “assault weapons” ban.

In a lawsuit presented by plaintiff James Miller, Judge Roger Benitez of California’s Southern District (George W. Bush appointee) ripped the state’s law, referring to it as a “failed experiment” and stating “State level assault weapon bans that remain in effect have little to show.”

The 94 page ruling starts off with:

Like the Swiss Army Knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment. Good for both home and battle, the AR-15 is the kind of versatile gun that lies at the intersection of the kinds of firearms protected under District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and United States v Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). Yet, the State of California makes it a crime to have an AR-15 type rifle. Therefore, this Court declares the California statutes to be unconstitutional.

Further still, Judge Benitez ripped into the false narratives set by the media and 2nd Amendment prohibitionists:
This case is not about extraordinary weapons lying at the outer limits of Second Amendment protection. The banned “assault weapons” are not bazookas, howitzers, or machineguns. Those arms are dangerous and solely useful for military purposes. Instead, the firearms deemed “assault weapons” are fairly ordinary, popular, modern rifles. This is an average case about average guns used in average ways for average purposes.
One is to be forgiven if one is persuaded by news media and others that the nation is awash with murderous AR-15 assault rifles. The facts, however, do not support this hyperbole, and facts matter. Federal Bureau of Investigation murder statistics do not track assault rifles, but they do show that killing by knife attack is far more common than murder by any kind of rifle. In California, murder by knife occurs seven times more often than murder by rifle. For example, according to F.B.I. statistics for 2019, California saw 252 people murdered with a knife, while 34 people were killed with some type of rifle – not necessarily an AR-15. A Californian is three times more likely to be murdered by an attacker’s bare hands, fists, or feet, than by his rifle.In 2018, the statistics were even more lopsided as California saw only 24 murders by some type of rifle. The same pattern can be observed across the nation.
Toward the end of the ruling, Benitez concludes:
Advertisement - story continues below


You might not know it, but this case is about what should be a muscular constitutional right and whether a state can force a gun policy choice that impinges on that right with a 30-year-old failed experiment. It should be an easy question and answer. Government is not free to impose its own new policy choices on American citizens where Constitutional rights are concerned. As Heller explains, the Second Amendment takes certain policy choices and removes them beyond the realm of permissible state action. California may certainly conceive of a policy that a modern rifle is dangerous in the hands of a criminal, and that therefore it is good public policy to keep modern rifles out of the hands of every citizen. The Second Amendment stands as a shield from government imposition of that policy.
There is only one policy enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Guns and ammunition in the hands of criminals, tyrants and terrorists are dangerous; guns in the hands of law-abiding responsible citizens are better. To give full life to the core right of self-defense, every law-abiding responsible individual citizen has a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear firearms commonly owned and kept for lawful purposes.

The ruling will surely be seen as a yuge victory for 2nd Amendment advocates and could very well be used to overturn similar laws in other states. Xavier Becerra was originally named as defendant, as he was the California state Attorney General at the time of the filing, but now his replacement, Rob Bonta, is officially the defendant.
There is one caveat, however. Judge Benitez stated in the order that he will entertain a motion by Bonta to stay the injunction until it’s appealed.


This is hardly Judge Benitez’s first foray into overturning laws infringing and impeding on 2nd Amendment rights. Benitez is the same judge who initially overturned both California’s ammo background check requirements and magazine bans. The overturning of the magazine capacity bans, known as Duncan v Becerra, was later affirmed by the 9th Circuit.
Advertisement - story continues below


Judge Benitez, original from Havana, Cuba, was first nominated by President Bush to serve in the federal courts.

[scruff]

And it wasn't even a Trump appointee. Winning!

[bogey1]

Why?

[Emptymag]

[Justin///M]

Blood in the streets. Nice job SAF.

[Eski]

If its ruled unconstitutional why wait for them to appeal.... I thought... A right delayed is a right denied.....

[Coops]

Appeal to Ninth Circuit - overturned;
Appeal to SCOTUS - Ninth overturned.

[Will3212]

Does this mean Cali. Residents can buy ARs now

[middlefinger]

.

listen to the crying

[PAMedic=F|A=]

U.S. judge overturns California*s ban on assault weapons
Fri, June 4, 2021, 11:24 PM
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) * A federal judge Friday overturned California*s three-decade-old ban on assault weapons, ruling that it violates the constitutional right to bear arms.

U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez of San Diego ruled that the state*s definition of illegal military-style rifles unlawfully deprives law-abiding Californians of weapons commonly allowed in most other states and by the U.S. Supreme Court.

*Under no level of heightened scrutiny can the law survive," Benitez said. He issued a permanent injunction against enforcement of the law but stayed it for 30 days to give state Attorney General Rob Bonta time to appeal.

Gov. Gavin Newsom condemned the decision, calling it *a direct threat to public safety and the lives of innocent Californians, period."

In his 94-page ruling, the judge spoke favorably of modern weapons, said they were overwhelmingly used for legal reasons.

*Like the Swiss Army knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment. Good for both home and battle," the judge said in his ruling's introduction.

That comparison *completely undermines the credibility of this decision and is a slap in the face to the families who*ve lost loved ones to this weapon," Newsom said in a statement. *We*re not backing down from this fight, and we*ll continue pushing for common sense gun laws that will save lives.*

Bonta called the ruling flawed and said it will be appealed.

California first restricted assault weapons in 1989, with multiple updates to the law since then.

Assault weapons as defined by the law are more dangerous than other firearms and are disproportionately used in crimes, mass shootings and against law enforcement, with more resulting casualties, the state attorney general*s office argued, and barring them *furthers the state*s important public safety interests.*

Further, a surge in sales of more than 1.16 million other types of pistols, rifles and shotguns in the last year * more than a third of them to likely first-time buyers * show that the assault weapons ban *has not prevented law-abiding citizens in the state from acquiring a range of firearms for lawful purposes, including self-defense,* the state contended in a court filing in March.

Similar assault weapon restrictions have previously been upheld by six other federal district and appeals courts, the state argued. Overturning the ban would allow not only assault rifles, but things like assault shotguns and assault pistols, state officials said.

But Benitez disagreed.

*This case is not about extraordinary weapons lying at the outer limits of Second Amendment protection. The banned *assault weapons* are not bazookas, howitzers, or machine guns. Those arms are dangerous and solely useful for military purposes," his ruling said.

Despite California's ban, there currently are an estimated 185,569 assault weapons registered with the state, the judge said.

*This is an average case about average guns used in average ways for average purposes," the ruling said. *One is to be forgiven if one is persuaded by news media and others that the nation is awash with murderous AR-15 assault rifles. The facts, however, do not support this hyperbole, and facts matter."

*In California, murder by knife occurs seven times more often than murder by rifle," he added.

In a preliminary ruling in September, Benitez said California*s complicated legal definition of assault weapons can ensnare otherwise law-abiding gun owners with criminal penalties that among other things can strip them of their Second Amendment right to own firearms.

"The burden on the core Second Amendment right, if any, is minimal,* the state argued, because the weapons can still be used * just not with the modifications that turn them into assault weapons. Modifications like a shorter barrel or collapsible stock make them more concealable, state officials said, while things like a pistol grip or thumbhole grip make them more lethal by improving their accuracy as they are fired rapidly.

The lawsuit filed by the San Diego County Gun Owners Political Action Committee, California Gun Rights Foundation, Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition is among several by gun advocacy groups challenging California*s firearms laws, which are among the strictest in the nation.

The lawsuit filed in August 2019 followed a series of deadly mass shootings nationwide involving military-style rifles.

It was filed on behalf of gun owners who want to use high-capacity magazines in their legal rifles or pistols, but said they can*t because doing so would turn them into illegal assault weapons under California law. Unlike military weapons, the semi-automatic rifles fire one bullet each time the trigger is pulled, and the plaintiffs say they are legal in 41 states.

The lawsuit said California is *one of only a small handful states to ban many of the most popular semiautomatic firearms in the nation because they possess one or more common characteristics, such as pistol grips and threaded barrels,* frequently but not exclusively along with detachable ammunition magazines.

The state is appealing Benitez*s 2017 ruling against the state*s nearly two-decade-old ban on the sales and purchases of magazines holding more than 10 bullets. That decision triggered a weeklong buying spree before the judge halted sales during the appeal. It was upheld in August by a three-judge appellate panel, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in March that an 11-member panel will rehear the case.

The state also is appealing Benitez*s decision in April 2020 blocking a 2019 California law requiring background checks for anyone buying ammunition.

Both of those measures were championed by Newsom when he was lieutenant governor, and they were backed by voters in a 2016 ballot measure.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-judge-o...032400825.html



Link to the ruling:

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.ne...pdf?1622850515