Judge Strikes Down California’s ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban, Blasts Misleading ‘News Media’ for Gun Hyperbole
By: Kyle Becker
Just wow! Talk about perfect timing! Just as the DC regime was talking more gun grabbing, a federal court just took down the most liberal states most sweeping gun control law. That he applied Heller to it is better yet since this now overturned law was passed pre Heller overturning the judge on appeal would have to be done in the context of the Heller precedent.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
In California, a three-decades-old “assault weapons” ban was struck down by a judge who called it a “failed experiment.” Governor Gavin Newsom, who is facing a tumultuous recall effort, has lashed out against the ruling, whose effects are currently under a 30-day stay.
“The judge, Roger T. Benitez of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, wrote that sections of the state’s penal code that defined assault weapons and restricted their use were ‘hereby declared unconstitutional and shall be enjoined’,” the New York Times reported .
“But the judge said he had granted a 30-day stay of the ruling at the request of Attorney General Rob Bonta, a move that would allow Mr. Bonta to appeal it,” the Times’ report continued. California had prohibited the sale of “assault weapons” in 1989, the report noted.
In a statement, Gov. Newsom called the ruling “a direct threat to public safety and the lives of innocent Californians.” Newsom objected to the ruling putting in plain language what the Second Amendment means and how it applies to the citizens’ right to armed self-defense.
The judge’s ruling itself contains stark language that is likely to “trigger” progressives like the California governor.
“Like the Swiss Army Knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment,” the case decision Miller, et al. v. Bonta read. “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 AR15 type rifle. Therefore, this Court declares the California statutes to be unconstitutional.”
The judge further unloaded on the facts of the case, which are often distorted by media hyperbole and radical left-wing activists.
“This case is not about extraordinary weapons lying at the outer limits of Second Amendment protection,” the judge continued. “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 judge scolded. “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,” Judge Benitez said. “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.”
Judge Benitez then set out to put the record straight about what the news media calls “assault weapons.”
“As an aside, the ‘assault weapon’ epithet is a bit of a misnomer,” he wrote. “These prohibited guns, like all guns, are dangerous weapons. However, these prohibited guns, like all guns, can be used for ill or for good. They could just as well be called ‘home defense rifles’ or ‘anti-crime guns’.”
The judge subsequently put California’s ‘assault weapons’ ban under the Heller test.
“As applied to AWCA, the Heller test asks: is a modern rifle commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for a lawful purpose?” he asked. “For the AR-15 type rifle the answer is ‘yes.’ The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and keep the popular AR-15 rifle and its many variants do so for lawful purposes, including selfdefense at home.”
“Under Heller, that is all that is needed,” the judge ruled. “Using the easy to understand Heller test, it is obvious that the California assault weapon ban is unconstitutional. Under the Heller test, judicial review can end right here.”
Tags
Who is online
230 visitors
I’m not holding my breath that this will survive the appeal process. While California’s restrictions are arguably stronger than most other states, the type of restrictions are not really unusual and have survived many challenges. That doesn’t mean I agree with them. I just think, at this point, that precedent is not on our side.
I am very happy with this decision
The gun grabbing crowd has got to be chewing bile on this one, in California no less! Outstanding common sense decision.
WOW!!!! The third posting of this same news story in two days - there's no question about what's most important to Americans.
I think the interest and importance isnt what was ruled on , but WHERE, it actually came out of the blue that a ruling like this would happen there .
Yeah, I think you're right.
This judge seems to be a moron.
I seriously doubt if there is a person on earth who would rather be facing a killer with an assault rifle pointed at them rather than a killer with a knife.
The judge says the conclusion that AR-15's are acceptable for individual ownership is "obvious". If it were obvious the decision would have been made by some judge a lot longer than a few days ago.
Let's see what the higher courts say.
Why, because he didn't follow leftist doctrine infringing on peoples' rights?
As for the higher courts; yes, let's see what they have to say. Considering they would have to overturn the Supreme Court ruling on Heller; after this judge accurately sited it.
His statistics are correct.
Nobody wants to face either one. It all sucks. What he is getting at is that it is hard to see the kind of difference that supports such restrictive legislation concerning one type of weapon over another - especially when it’s responsible for much fewer deaths. If you just restrict the consideration to firearms, simple handguns are used to kill many times more people every year than these rifles (it’s 7,8,9, 10,000 vs like 3 or 400). Statistically, we should be outlawing handguns long before we get to rifles.
.50 caliber machine guns are responsible for zero deaths in the United States to the best of my knowledge, yet they are illegal. A weapon can be made illegal because of the threat it poses not just the amount of people it has been used against.
The Heller ruling and Justice Scolia did not rule out some regulation of individual gun ownership.
Someone with an assault rifle and extended magazines can enter a school or mall and fire hundreds of rounds in a few minutes if they have enough ammunition.
Why on earth do people think such weapons should be available to everyone?
I can do the same thing with a pistol and a backpack full of loaded magazines. In fact, it’s easier. The handgun is cheaper than the rifle and so is the ammunition. I can walk down the street with my weapon and ammo and right up to the school gate without anyone seeing that I am armed. It’s much harder to hide the rifle.
There are reasons that the great bulk of firearm homicides are committed with handguns, and it’s not because of bans an assault weapons. It’s because handguns are cheaper to acquire and load, easier to hide, and more intuitive in their operation.
I actually don’t want firearms available to everyone. Even conservatives say that the mentally ill should not have access to them. Currently access is forbidden at the federal level (and most states) to felons and those convicted of domestic violence (even misdemeanor DV). I think most people agree with that, as well.
I also wish there was some kind of required training not just in the use and storage of weapons, but also in anger management related to firearms. But then you start getting into people’s liberty and the limitations of the Constitution.
I don’t oppose sensible regulation.
.50 cals, by the way are never going to be popular, with or without restrictions. They weigh like a hundred pounds (more if you count the tripod) and buying one is like what a small car costs. Anyway, that’s a genuine weapon of war for mass destruction, and not all something I would consider as defense for an individual. I have no problem restricting ownership of something like that any more than I would for hand grenades, tanks, and fighter planes.
LOL devil is in the details , my .50 cal weighs in at just over 13 pounds , the handgun in that cal just over 3 pounds .....
I’m amazed at people that fire those handguns. My uncle used to go pig hunting with one.
yep thats true , and 50 cal bolt action and semi autos(barretts) are responsable for zero deaths as well and fully legal
well the .500 S&W is a 50 cal , and a modern gun , the details i mention is my 50s are hawken replicas , black powder , still no slouches when loaded with minies or patched roundballs . largest modern handgun i have is a .454 casull, that has a bit of a bark. use that for hunting when i chose to in thick timber and a standard rifle is too long.
This is directly from the ruling
The judge appears to be a simpleton. 30 "ready" rounds in the 18th century were NOT the equivalent to 30 ready rounds in the 21st century , even though the judge almost directly says they are. With an 18th century weapon, each round had to be individually loaded and the gun had to be reloaded between shots. In the time it would take for the 18th century mass shooter to load and fire one round at a crowd in a market, the 21st century mass shooter could have emptied his 30 round magazine into a crowd of people.
This judge does not sound like a mensa candidate.
For a bunch of Democrats that like to think of the Constitution as a living breathing document that isn't set in stone and open to a wide variety of interpretations; they suddenly become butt clenching arch conservatives when it comes to the Second Amendment; which has been ruled on several times in the Supreme Court.
[deleted, JR is not the topic]
Bearable, modern arms - non-existent when the List of Good Ideas was written - enjoy 2a protection. The Supreme Court said so when it handed Massachusetts it's ass when Caetano sued.
The judge who ruled on this case says in his ruling in effect, that a Minuteman in 1775 having 30 musket balls in his pouch is no different than a 30 round magazine in an assault type rifle today.
That is absurd.
You can’t just count rounds and compare it to the 21st century. The real point was that people be ready for actual, extended, battle. In the 18th century, that might have meant 30 rounds, but in the 21st century, the number is a lot higher.
average rounds per min by a well drilled militia or professional military was 3 rounds per min if some were real good 4 rounds per min back when the 2nd was conceived with flintlocks , 30 rounds is roughly 10 mins of firing using those factors
basic load when i pulled security in the military was 120 rounds , overseas it was 240.
If this ruling holds you can expect more AR15 sold and the strong possibility of mass shootings.
Ain't America great.
the ruling holds , most places will just mandate more gun free zones , the largest contributor and place mass shootings occur, so yep likely will be more mass shootings in those places of high population density. .
I actually don't mind the gun.
It is the idiots that are let use them...
So by all means, let us have free carry...